ELECTION  AND  CONVERSION 

A  frank  discussion  ol  Dr.  F.  Pieper  s  Book  on 
'<3onversion  and  Election,**  with  some  sugges- 
tions (or  Lutheran  Unity  on  Another  Basis. 

LEANDER  S.  KEYSER,  D.  D. 

BX  8065  .KA 

Keyser,  Leander  Sylvester, 

1856- 
Election  and  conversion 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/electionconversiOOkeys 


0:H  of  Fn/iJ^ 


Election  and  ConversioniL^ 


A  Frank  Discussion  of 

Dr.  Pieper's  Book  on  "Conversion  and  Election," 

with  Suggestions  for 

Lutheran  Concord  and  Union 

on  Another  Basis 


LEANDER  S.  KEYSER,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  Hanima  Divinity  School, 
Wittenberg  College,  Springfield,  Ohio 

Author  of  "A  System  of  Christian  Ethics, ^^ 

*'A  System  of  Christian  Evidence,'' 

' '  The  Rational  Test, ' '  etc. 


BURLINGTON.    IOWA 
THE    GERMAN    LITERARY    BOARD 

1914 


Copyright  1914 
By     R.    NEUMANN 

BURLINGTON,    IOWA 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  P<J^ge 

I.     Missouri's  Precise  Position 5 

II.     A   Note  on  Lutheran  Union 14 

III.  The  Pvegulative  Doctrine 22 

IV.  Locating   the   Mystery 31 

V.     The  Heart  of  the  Question 41 

VI.     Regeneration  Working  Faith 61 

VII.     Salient  Scripture  Teaching 7Z 

VIII.     Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace 86 

IX.     Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages Ill 

X.     Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism? 142 

XI.     The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity 158 

Index  179 


ELECTION  AND  CONVERSION 


I 

MISSOURI'S   PRECISE   POSITION 

A  NOTABLE  booklet,  by  Professor  Pieper,  D.  D., 
of  Concordia  Lutheran  Seminary,  St.  Louis,  Mo., 
was  issued  in  1913.  It  bears  the  title,  "Conversion  and 
Election,"  and  the  significant  sub-title,  "A  Plea  for  a 
United  Lutheranism  in  America."  The  book  has  attracted 
much  attention  in  all  branches  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
and  is  being  widely  circulated  both  by  sale  and  gift  copies. 
It  is  written  in  a  clear  and  fluent  style,  and  an  excellent 
spirit  prevades  it  all ;  indeed,  it  could  not  display  a  more 
irenic  and  complaisant  temper,  and  at  the  same  time 
maintain  the  author's  stalwart  theological  positions.  For 
the  fine  spirit  evinced  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  should 
feel  grateful.  A  few  brief  replies  have  been  made  to 
the  booklet  by  men  in  the  Ohio  and  Iowa  Synods,  to 
whom  Dr.  Pieper  has  responded  in  a  supplemental 
chapter.* 

The  author's  sub-title  would  indicate  that  he  in- 
tends his  production  to  appeal  to  all  Lutherans  in 
America,  not  merely  to  the  Norwegian  Lutherans,  whose 
effort  at  union  was  the  occasion  for  the  issue  of  his  book. 

*Since  this  was  written,  a  committee  of  the  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio  has  pubhshed  a  reply  in  pamphlet  form. 


6  Election  and  Conversion 

Therefore,  we  feel  that  the  General  Synod  must  be  in- 
cluded in  this  "plea  for  a  United  Lutheranism  in 
America."  True,  we  cannot  quite  agree  with  the  author 
that  his  work  is  a  "plea;"  it  is  rather  an  argument  for 
Missouri's  position,  an  earnest  and  powerful  one,  and 
an  invitation  for  all  other  Lutherans  to  go  over  upon 
that  platform ;  yet  the  conciliatory  spirit  and  the  evident 
desire  for  Lutheran  union  displayed  in  the  book  are  most 
winsome,  and  the  general  tone  and  manner  do  not  stir 
resentment. 

The  immediate  occasion  for  the  publication  of  the 
book  was  the  union  of  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Synod 
and  the  United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church,  by  the 
adoption  of  Articles  of  Agreement  at  Madison,  Wis. 
These  articles  are  printed  in  full  in  the  book,  so  that 
those  who  wish  may  read  them  for  themselves ;  and  they 
are  of  great  importance  from  every  viewpoint,  and  should 
be  read  with  care.  It  appears  to  Dr.  Pieper — and  to  us 
as  well — that  the  articles  are  somwhat  indeterminate  on 
the  doctrine  of  election,  being  a  kind  of  compromise  be- 
tween the  stiff  predestinarianism  of  Missouri  and  the 
milder  views  of  Pontoppidan,  Gerhard  and  Scriver.  To 
put  it  as  precisely  as  we  know  how,  some  of  the  articles 
endorse  the  position  of  Missouri  in  the  plainest  and  most 
positive  terms,  but  afterward  certain  paragraphs  are  in- 
serted that  modify  it  in  such  a  way  that  the  followers 
of  the  other  view  might  be  tolerated.  In  short,  the 
articles  do  not  seem  to  be  quite  consistent  throughout. 
Therefore  Dr.  Pieper  thinks  that  the  Norwegians  should 
eliminate,  or  at  least  qualify,  the  compromising  sections. 

However,  in  this  work  we  shall  not  undertake  to 
discuss,  much  less  criticise,  the  Norwegian  Articles  of 


Missouri's  Precise  Position  7 

Agreement.  Our  purpose  is  to  deal  with  the  doctrinal 
position  of  the  Synodical  Conference  as  set  forth  by  Dr. 
Pieper  in  his  impressive  booklet.  We  would  simply  add 
that  perhaps  the  Madison  Agreement  is  the  best  possible 
statement  the  Norwegians  are  able  to  make  to  suit  all 
parties,  especially  in  view  of  the  profound  and  insoluble 
mysteries  of  the  eternal  decrees  of  the  Godhead — a  sub- 
ject, as  we  shall  try  to  show  later,  on  which  no  body  of 
men  should  presume  to  dogmatize  in  such  a  way  as  to 
exclude  from  church-fellowship  any  of  their  Lutheran 
brethren.  We  may  be  wrong,  but  just  now  we  think 
it  would  be  best  for  the  Norwegian  Lutherans  to  "let 
well  enough  alone,"  and  go  on  their  way  with  one 
accord  as  brethren,  and  help  to  do  the  work  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  the  extension  of  God's  kingdom  in 
America,  without  presuming  to  settle  those  matters  which 
are  beyond  human  comprehension.  Thinking  and  writ- 
ing on  these  mysterious  subjects  are  of  value  in  their 
place ;  and,  moreover,  it  is  native  to  the  minds  which  God 
has  given  us  to  delve  as  deeply  as  we  can  into  these 
great  and  holy  mysteries;  but  we  do  think  our  theolo- 
gizing and  speculating  on  them  ought  not  to  be  made  the 
ground  of  division  among  Lutherans  who  truly  accept 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  even 
though  they  cannot  understand  all  things  in  the  same 
way.    More  of  this  later. 

Dr.  Pieper's  book  is  of  great  value ;  indeed,  it  will 
be  an  "eye-opener"  to  many  people  outside  of  the  Synod- 
ical Conference  who  have  not  taken  the  pains  to  inform 
themselves  as  to  that  body's  precise  doctrinal  position. 
For  instance,  this  book  ought  from  now  on  to  preclude 
the  charge  of   Calvinism   against   Missouri.      No  more 


8  Election  and  Conversion 

ought  that  allegation  to  be  made,  because  Missouri  de- 
nies the  charge  in  toto  et  ex  animo.  We  Lutherans  ought 
to  know  by  experience  how  trying  it  is  to  be  charged  with 
a  doctrine  which  we  have  always  rejected  with  all  our 
vigor,  namely,  the  error  of  Consubstantination  in  the 
Lord's  Supper;  for,  in  spite  of  our  oft-repeated  denials, 
there  are  men  even  today  who  allege  this  error  to  be 
ours.*  Not  only  because  Missouri  repudiates  Calvinism 
should  all  cease  from  charging  her  with  it,  but  also 
because,  as  we  shall  show,  she  explains  her  position  in 
such  a  way  as  to  disclaim  the  central  doctrine  of  the 
Calvinistic  view  of  predestination.  Now  we  humbly 
hope,  too,  that  we  shall  be  able  to  show  that  our  Missouri 
brethren  should  cease  to  charge  Synergism  and  Pelag- 
ianism  against  their  fellow-Lutherans  who  cannot  fully 
accept  their  view-point. 

What  is  the  precise  Missouri  doctrine  of  election? 
Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  she  honestly  believes 
she  is  adhering  strictly  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  and 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  also  thinks  that  her 
opponents  are  not  correctly  interpreting  them.  Of  her 
sincerity  no  one  should  for  a  moment  entertain  any 
doubts.  In  a  series  of  plain  propositions  we  believe  we 
can  precisely  set  forth  her  position,  which  is  as  follows : 

L  God  from  eternity  elected  some  to  be  saved 
and  did  not  elect  others.  (Do  not  charge  Calvinism  here, 
but  wait  for  the  rest  of  the  statement.) 

2.  God's  eternal  election  of  those  who  are  saved 
is  in  nowise  dependent  on  or  conditioned  by  anything 


*Even  so  profound  a  writer  as  Dr.  A.  M.  Fairbairn  charges 
Luther  and  Lutheran  theologians  with  "consubstantiation."  (See 
his  "The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,"  p.  161.) 


Missouri's  Precise  Position  9 

that  is  in  man  or  that  man  can  do,  but  belongs  only  to 
His  own  inscrutable  counsel,  will  and  purpose.  Why 
God  elected  those  who  are  finally  saved  is  a  mystery 
which  he  has  not  revealed,  and  therefore  we  should  not 
seek  any  explanation  of  it.  Both  the  Synergists  and  the 
Calvinists  try  to  explain  it,  and  that  is  where  they  are 
wrong. 

3.  The  elect  are  elected  and  saved  solely  by  grace. 
Sola  gratia  is  the  watchword  of  Missouri  when  speak- 
ing of  the  elect.  Therefore  they  are  not  elected  "in  view 
of  faith"  {intuitu  fidei)  or  "good  conduct,"  but  wholly 
and  solely  through  the  gracious  will  and  purpose  of 
God.  To  try  to  explain  God's  reasons  for  electing  certain 
ones,  either  by  intuitu  fidei  or  "good  conduct,"  is  going 
beyond  Scriptural  teaching,  and  is  therefore  not  only 
synergistic,  but  presumptuous ;  for  it  is  prying  into  the 
inexplicable  mysteries  of  God's  eternal  decree. 

4.  While  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  do  not  re- 
veal and  explain  why  those  who  are  finally  saved  were 
elected  out  of  the  mass  of  mankind,  they  do  clearly  tell 
us  why  the  non-elect  are  condemned ;  it  is  solely  be- 
cause of  their  willful  sin  and  guilt,  especially  in  re- 
jecting Christ  and  resisting  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  get 
only  what  they  deserve;  on  this  point  the  Bible  is  per- 
fectly clear:  "He  is  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance;"  "Ho, 
every  one  that  thirsteth ;"  "Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that 
ye  might  have  life ;"  "And  this  is  the  condemnation 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  dark- 
ness rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  are  evil." 
God  is  perfectly  in  earnest  in  ofifering  salvation  to  all 
alike,  and  desires  all  to  be  saved,  and  so  it  is  not  His 


10  Election  and  Conversion 

fault  if  some  are  not  saved.  This  is  the  slogan  of 
universalis  gratia  which  Missouri  proclaims  with  all  her 
might.  Hence  she  is  not  Calvinistic,  but  utterly  re- 
pudiates the  Calvinistic  formula  of  a  limited  atonement 
and  a  limited  proffer  of  salvation.  The  Calvinist  tries 
to  account  for  the  difference  between  the  salvation  of 
the  elect  and  the  non-salvation  of  the  non-elect,  on  the 
ground  that  God  makes  His  call  effectual  with  the 
former,  but  leaves  the  others  to  their  fate,  because  He 
has  predestinated  the  latter  to  be  lost.  If  He  externally 
calls  the  non-elect  He  does  not  mean  to  make  the  call 
effectual.  This  Calvinistic  view  is  utterly  repugnant  to 
Missouri. 

5.  So  far  as  concerns  their  moral  and  spiritual 
condition,  both  the  elect  and  the  non-elect  are  in  the 
same  case ;  both  alike  guilty ;  both  alike  unable  to  de- 
liver themselves ;  the  faith  or  conduct  of  the  one  does 
not  decide  the  matter  of  their  election.  Why  did  God 
then  elect  the  one  class  and  not  the  other?  That  is  the 
mystery  of  the  eternal  divine  decree  into  which  we  have 
no  business  to  pry,  because  it  has  not  been  revealed  in 
God's  Word.  This  is  Missouri's  position,  then,  in  a  few 
words :  The  elect  are  predestined  from  eternity,  but 
what  the  ground  or  determining  cause  of  their  elec- 
tion is,  we  do  not  and  cannot  know.  God  has  not  told 
us.  The  following  is  Dr.  Pieper's  clear  and  admirable 
statement  of  the  case  (page  21)  : 

"Let  us  ascertain  briefly  in  what  respect  we  are 
facing  a  mystery  at  this  point.  The  Scriptures  teach, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  is 
extended  to  all  alike,  and,  on  the  other,  that  there  is 
no  difference  among  men,  since  all  are  in  the  same  state 


Missouri's  Precise  Position  11 

of  total  depravity  and  in  the  same  guilt  before  God,  and 
their  conduct  over  against  the  saving  grace  of  God  is 
equally  evil.  Such  being  the  case,  we  might  conclude, 
either  that  all  men  would  be  saved  by  the  grace  of  God, 
or  that  all  would  be  lost  by  their  own  guilt.  Instead, 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  some  are  saved  merely  by  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  rest  are  lost  solely  by  their  own 
guilt.  Why  this  different  result  when  the  underlying 
conditions  are  the  same?  This  is  the  mystery  which  no 
man  has  ever  properly  solved,  and  no  man  ever  will 
properly  solve  in  this  life,  because  the  Word  of  God 
offers  no  solution." 

We  break  the  long  paragraph,  for  Dr.  Pieper  con- 
tinues :  "We  should  bear  in  mind  that  no  mystery  appears 
when  each  of  the  classes,  those  who  are  saved  and  those 
who  are  lost,  are  considered  separately.  In  this  separate 
view  of  the  two  classes  everything  is  explained  by  the 
Word  of  God.  The  Word  of  God  names  only  one  cause 
of  the  conversion  and  final  salvation  of  those  who  are 
actually  converted  and  finally  saved ;  it  is  in  each  and 
every  case  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.  Likewise  it  names 
only  one  cause  of  the  non-conversion,  and  failure  to  be 
saved,  of  those  who  are  not  converted  and  are  not  finally 
saved ;  it  is  in  each  and  every  case  the  fault  of  man ; 
it  is  owing,  in  particular,  to  his  resistance  against  the 
converting  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  harden- 
ing of  man's  heart,  too,  proceeds  only  on  the  basis  of 
human  guilt. 

"But  the  mystery  appears  when  the  classes  are  com- 
pared with  one  another.  The  question  then  arises :  If 
grace  is  universal  and  total  depravity  general,  then  why 
are  not  all  converted  and  finally  saved?     Cur  alii  prae 


12  Election  and  Conversion 

aliisf  It  is  this  question  that  the  Word  of  God  does  not 
answer.  At  this  point  we  must,  with  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  acknowledge  a  mystery  insoluble  in  this  life. 
If  a  man  so  much  as  strives  to  solve  this  difficulty,  he 
proves  himself  a  poor  theologian,  because  he  does  not 
know  the  limitations  of  theological  knowledge:  he  pre- 
sumes to  know  more  in  matters  spiritual  than  is  revealed 
in  the  Word  of  God ;  while  he  who  actually  solves  this 
mystery  is  forthwith  proved  a  false  teacher;  for  he  de- 
nies either  sola  gratia,  that  is,  that  those  who  are  saved 
are  saved  solely  by  the  grace  of  God,  or  he  denies 
universalis  gratia,  i.  e.,  that  all  who  are  lost  are  lost  by 
their  own  fault." 

Surely  the  above  is  an  explicit  statement  of  Mis- 
souri's position.  Every  thinker  can  clearly  see  wherein 
it  differs  from  Calvinism,  which  teaches  that  by  an 
absolute  decree  God  predestined  some  to  be  saved  and 
others  to  be  lost.  Missouri  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  f oreordination  unto  reprobation ;  she  stoutly  up- 
holds the  doctrine  of  universalis  gratia.  She  stops  in 
the  face  of  the  mystery,  and  bows  humbly  to  what  she 
believes  is  the  teaching  of  God's  Word.  So  far  as  we 
have  seen,  she  does  not  even  venture  the  statement  that 
God,  for  good  and  right  reasons,  elected  those  who  will 
be  finally  saved,  while  others  are  not  saved.  That,  how- 
ever, might  be  implied  when  Dr.  Pieper  says  this  mystery 
will  never  be  solved  "in  this  life;"  for  such  a  statement 
connotes  the  fact  that  in  the  next  life  all  will  be  made 
plain,  and  we  shall  all  be  satisfied  that  God  acted 
graciously  and  justly,  and  not  arbitrarily.  Dr.  Pieper 
would  have  sufficient  Biblical  ground  to  qualify  with 
such  a  statement,  for  "will  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 


Missouri's  Precise  Position  13 

do  right?"     "Righteousness  and  justice  are  the  founda- 
tion of  His  throne"  (Ps.  97:2). 

We  think  now  that  Dr.  Pieper's  doctrinal  position, 
which  is  evidently  that  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  has 
been  presented  with  sufficient  fullness  and  explicitness. 
Our  next  duty  will  be  to  attempt  to  discuss  the  merits 
of  his  book. 


II 

A    NOTE    ON    LUTHERAN    UNION 

FIRST,  observe  that  this  production  is  a  "plea  for  a 
united  Lutheranism  in  America."  To  say  it  as 
graciously  as  we  know  how,  it  does  not  seem  to  us  to 
be  a  "plea."  It  is  rather  a  powerful  argument  for  all 
Lutherans  in  America  to  adopt  the  Missouri  platform; 
a  polemic  (in  the  good  sense)  rather  than  a  plea.  Of 
course,  if  the  presentation  were  convincing  to  all  of  us,  all 
would  be  very  easy ;  we  would  simply  go  over  to  Missouri. 
We  want  it  understood  that  we  are  not  saying  this  with 
the  least  degree  of  sarcasm.  However,  we  in  the  General 
Synod  might  put  up  a  strong  argument  for  our  con- 
fessional position,  and  then  invite  all  other  Lutherans  to 
come  and  unite  with  us.  If  we  did  that,  we  would  not 
call  our  polemic  a  "plea,"  but  would  give  it  its  proper 
title.  Both  the  Disciples  and  the  Episcopalians  are 
making  the  same  kind  of  a  proposition  to  all  the 
Protestant  Churches:  "Come  over  to  our  position,  and 
then  we  shall  all  be  lovingly  united." 

To  be  perfectly  candid,  we  are  persuaded  that  there 
is  little  hope  of  Lutheran  unity  until  the  various  Luth- 
eran bodies  are  willing  to  grant  some  liberty  of  opinion 
on  those  great  and  abstruse  questions  about  which  there 
is,  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be,  a  difference 
among  good  and  spiritually  minded  Lutherans.  Dr. 
Pieper  and  his  fellow-churchmen  all  declare  that  there 
is  an  insoluble  mystery  about  God's  eternal  decree  of 


A  Note  on  Lutheran  Union  15 

election.  If  so,  why  make  it  a  source  of  division  among 
us?  Why  make  it  a  shibboleth?  Why  exclude  other 
Lutherans  who  accept  the  Scriptures  just  as  heartily  and 
hold  just  as  tenaciously  to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, even  though  they  may  have  a  somewhat  dififerent 
understanding  of  what  occurred  in  the  mind  of  God 
away  back  in  eternity?  Really  if  we  all  accept  the 
Bible,  the  Augustana,  justification  by  faith  alone,  salva- 
tion by  grace  alone  {sola  gratia),  the  universal  and 
serious  offer  of  salvation  {universalis  gratia),  together 
with  the  Lutheran  doctrines  of  the  person  of  Christ,  the 
atonement,  the  sacraments,  etc.,  does  it  matter  so  much 
about  our  particularistic  ideas  of  God's  eternal  sov- 
ereignty and  decrees?  And  we  all  do  accept  the  above 
named  precious  doctrines,  every  one  of  them,  as  we 
shall  show  in  a  later  chapter. 

After  reading  Dr.  Pieper's  booklet,  we  read  over 
again,  for  perhaps  the  fifth  time,  Dr.  Jacobs'  excellent 
discussion  of  the  subject  of  predestination  in  his  book, 
"A  Summary  of  the  Christian  Faith."  What  a  pleasure 
it  has  been  to  read  and  compare  the  views  of  these  two 
expert  and  sincere  Lutheran  theologians !  Both  of  them 
are  thoroughly  Biblical,  appealing  to  and  interpreting  the 
same  passages  of  Scripture ;  both  of  them  are  stalwart 
Lutherans,  accepting  confessionally  the  whole  Book  of 
Concord ;  both  of  them  quote  liberally  from  the  same 
articles  of  the  Formula  of  Concord ;  both  of  them  are 
intensely  in  earnest,  and  possessed  of  great  scholarship; 
both  of  them  are  equally  cogent  and  sincere  advocates 
of  sola  gratia  and  universalis  gratia;  both  of  them  with 
like  vigor  repudiate  Synergism  and  Calvinism;  and  yet 
Dr.    Pieper   pointedly   rejects    the   doctrine   of   election 


16  Election  and  Conversion 

intuitu  fidei,  while  Dr.  Jacobs  accepts  and  strongly  de- 
fends it!  Surely  in  such  a  case,  this  mooted  doctrine 
ought  not  to  be  made  the  ground  of  ecclesiastical  strife 
and  mutual  exclusion.  Surely  there  are  some  doctrines 
that  the  dogmaticians  may  leave  in  the  sphere  of 
Lutheran  liberty,  without  endangering  "die  reine  Lehre" 
or  the  welfare  of  our  Lutheran  Zion. 

It  is  our  purpose  to  dwell  at  some  length  on  the 
question  of  Lutheran  unity  in  our  last  chapter,  and  so 
we  will  not  develop  that  subject  any  further  at  this  time. 
However,  it  is  pertinent  here  to  make  a  confession.  We 
have  passed  through  a  strenuous  mental  wrestling  match 
before  venturing  to  submit  this  work  for  publication. 
The  question  over  which  we  have  struggled  for  weeks 
has  been,  "Shall  we,  or  shall  we  not?"  It  was  by  no 
means  an  easy  question  to  decide. 

First,  it  would  be  so  much  easier,  so  much  more 
comfortable,  to  go  along  quietly,  make  no  disturbance, 
stir  no  criticism  and  no  further  debate,  and  just  let  mat- 
ters ecclesiastical  and  doctrinal  go  their  own  way.  Why 
challenge  Dr.  Pieper's  work?  Would  it  not  be  just  as 
well  to  let  it  have  free  course  among  our  Lutheran 
people  ? 

Then,  there  is  the  question  of  Lutheran  comity  and 
good  will,  with  some  prospect  of  organic  union  by  and 
by.  And  Lutheran  unity  is  a  consummation  so  devoutly 
to  be  wished  that  we  may  truly  say  it  has  been  a  "hobby" 
with  us  for  many  years.  And  now  here  is  an  irenic  and 
kindly  presentation  of  Missouri's  view-point  that  has 
charmed  many  people  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  that 
seems  on  the  surface  to  be  a  real  plea  and  overture  for 
Lutheran  unification.    Some  quite  favorable  reviews  and 


A  Note  on  Lutheran  Union  17 

editorials  on  the  production  have  appeared  in  several 
Lutheran  periodicals  that  have  hitherto  been  rather 
stoutly  and  frankly  opposed  to  Missouri's  doctrinal 
position.  It  really  appears,  on  the  surface,  at  least,  as 
if  the  book  might  be  adapted  to  promote  the  glorious 
cause  of  Lutheran  union.  Might  not  a  criticism  of  Dr. 
Pieper's  book  just  at  this  critical  time  simply  stir  more 
debate,  unsettle  the  minds  of  some  who  have  been  almost 
won  over,  and  thus  postpone  the  day  of  Lutheran  con- 
ciliation and  peace?  In  the  face  of  these  considerations, 
we  have  more  than  once  been  tempted  to  put  the  lid  on 
our  typewriter,  refuse  to  write  another  line,  and  con- 
sign the  manuscript  already  prepared  to  the  quiet 
security  of  the  waste-basket. 

And  yet !  There  is  always  that  ''and  yet."  When- 
ever the  temptation  came  to  hold  our  peace,  and  the 
desire  for  a  comfortable  time  allured  us,  our  conscience 
started  up  and  gave  us  disquietude.  This  statement  may 
create  a  smile,  even  a  smile  of  condescension ;  neverthe- 
less, it  is  the  truth.  And  why?  Because  in  reading  and 
studying  Dr.  Pieper's  book,  we  became  more  and  more 
convinced  of  certain  serious  faults  and  weaknesses  in 
the  author's  method  of  citing  the  Scriptures,  in  some 
of  the  premises  assumed,  and  in  the  conclusions  drawn 
therefrom.  Largely  the  charm  of  the  book  is  its  kind 
and  gentle  spirit.  Besides,  the  author  has  an  ingenious 
way  of  citing  proof-texts,  and  collating  and  assembling 
them,  so  that  readers  who  do  not  examine  them  carefully 
in  the  light  of  their  contextual  settings  and  relations,  will 
be  inclined  to  think  the  argument  conclusive.  His  logic, 
too,  is  often  ordered  in  such  a  way  as  to  carry  convic- 
tion.    And  when  he  assumes  a  premise,  he  pushes  on 


18  Election  and  Conversion 

relentlessly  to  the  conclusion.  Still  more,  there  is  much 
display  of  erudition  in  the  work;  many  people,  there- 
fore, will  be  disposed  to  think  that  a  man  who  has  com- 
mand of  such  large  stores  of  learning  must  be  able  to 
say  the  final  word.  All  these  elements  make  the  book 
fascinating  and  all  but  convincing  to  persons  who  read, 
but  do  not  stop  to  analyze,  sift  and  investigate  for 
themselves. 

And  yet,  spite  of  it  all,  we  cannot  bring  ourselves 
to  believe  that  the  author's  main  propositions  are  well 
taken,  or  that  his  conclusions  are  correctly  drawn,  either 
from  a  Biblical  or  a  Lutheran  view-point.  Indeed,  we 
think  the  errors  of  the  book  are  quite  serious,  as  we  shall 
try  to  show.  So  the  question  that  rose  in  our  mind,  and 
would  not  down,  was  this:  What  a  pity  it  would  be — 
indeed,  what  a  misfortune — if  some  of  the  great  branches 
of  our  Lutheran  Church  should  be  drawn  into  a  union 
on  a  wrong  basis,  or,  at  least,  a  basis  that  should  after- 
wards be  found  to  be  far  from  satisfactory!  Are  any 
of  us,  who  have  hitherto  had  a  different  conception  of 
conversion  and  election,  ready  to  go  into  a  union  on  the 
Missouri  basis?  Have  we  given  the  subject  sufficient 
study?  We  think  not;  the  subject  needs  still  more  dis- 
cussion. A  union  on  the  proposed  basis  at  this  time 
would  be  hasty,  premature.  The  other  side  should  be  fully 
presented,  and  in  a  new  form,  at  this  strategic  point.  We 
are  persuaded  that  a  union  effected  on  the  Missouri  basis 
would  not  be  lasting.  The  mistake  would  soon  be 
detected,  for  you  cannot  keep  men  from  thinking  and 
investigating. 

All  the  more  necessary  does  it  seem  to  be  to  present 
the  other  side,  from  the  fact  that  some  men  appear  to 


A  Note  on  Lutheran  Union  19 

think  that  Dr.  Pieper  has  said  the  final  word;  that  the 
question  is  now  a  closed  one,  and  that  no  further  dis- 
cussion is  needed.  This,  we  are  convinced  by  our 
investigations,  is  a  mistake.  While  we  are  extremely 
anxious  for  peace,  we  do  not  want  peace  on  a  wrong 
basis ;  nor  are  we  willing  that  all  the  concessions  should 
have  to  be  made  by  one  side — the  side,  too,  which,  we 
are  sincerely  convinced,  has  the  stronger  Biblical  teach- 
ing in  its  favor. 

If  any  one  should  accuse  us  of  stirring  up  feeling, 
we  would  reply  that  Dr.  Pieper  did  not  spare  the  feelings 
of  his  opponents.  Of  course,  as  we  have  said,  he  showed 
a  comparatively  gentle  and  irenic  spirit;  yet  he  did  not 
recede  one  hair's  breadth  from  the  rigid  Missouri  posi- 
tion. He  demands  that  all  the  yielding  be  done  by  those 
who  differ  with  him  and  his  Synod.  Nor  is  that  all. 
He  again  and  again  accuses  his  opponents  of  Synergism, 
which  is  a  term  of  reproach  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  If 
you  want  to  blacken  a  man's  good  name  theologically, 
just  call  him  a  Synergist.  Worse  yet.  Dr.  Pieper  calls 
his  theological  opponents  Pelagians,  which  is  a  very 
opprobrious  term  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  At  the  same 
time  he  demands  that  the  charge  of  Calvinism  against 
Missouri  be  withdrawn.  To  call  a  Missourian  a  Calvinist 
is  also  regarded  a  serious  blot  on  his  reputation.  How- 
ever, our  friend  does  not  seem  to  realize  that  it  hurts 
others  just  as  much  to  be  called  Synergists  and  Pelagians 
as  it  does  our  Missouri  brethren  to  be  called  Calvinists. 
You  see,  all  through  this  polemic  there  is  not  one  iota 
of  yielding  on  the  Missouri  side,  but  every  concession 
is  to  be  made  by  those  who  differ  from  her. 

Still  more,  Dr.  Pieper  from  beginning  to  end  charges 


20  Election  and  Conversion 

his  opponents  with  teaching  human  merit  and  work- 
righteousness.  This  indictment  must  by  all  means  be 
disclaimed  and  disproved.  It  would  stultify  the  rest  of 
us  as  Lutherans  to  let  it  go  unchallenged.  Every  true 
Lutheran  knows  that  he  discards  such  a  doctrine  with 
all  his  might.  If  Lutheran  concord  is  to  be  effected,  as 
we  hope  and  pray  it  may,  the  charge  of  Synergism  and 
human  merit  must  be  withdrawn,  just  as  the  accusation 
of  Calvinism  against  Missouri  must  be  withdrawn. 

In  view  of  the  voluminous  replies  that  have  been 
made  to  the  Missouri  contentions,  it  may  seem  super- 
fluous to  add  another  polemic  on  the  subject.  There  is 
Dr.  Stellhorn's  great  work  in  German,  which  we  regret 
to  say  we  have  not  been  able  to  read.  However,  we  have 
had  the  privilege  of  reading  the  large  book  (802  octavo 
pages)  edited  by  Dr.  E.  L.  S.  Tressel,  entitled,"The  Error 
of  Missouri."  (According  to  the  title  page,  it  was  edited 
by  Dr.  Schodde;  perhaps  Dr.  Tressel  stood  sponsor  for 
its  publication.)  This  work  is  in  English,  and  contains 
the  powerful  argument  of  Drs.  Stellhorn  and  Schmidt 
and  of  Revs.  Allwardt  and  Ernst.  There  is  also  Dr. 
Jacobs'  compact  and  lucid  chapter  on  the  divine  purpose 
in  his  work,  "A  Summary  of  the  Christian  Faith." 
Besides,  many  magazine  articles  have  appeared  setting 
forth  the  anti-Missouri  views.  These  can  be  secured 
and  examined  by  those  who  are  interested  in  the  whole 
controversy. 

Still,  we  do  not  think  everything  has  been  said  on  the 
subject.  This  little  work,  we  venture  to  think,  will  give  the 
arguments  in  succinct  form.  In  many  respects,  too,  they 
are  put  in  a  different  way,  perhaps  in  simpler  language 
and  in  shorter  and  more  simply  constructed  sentences. 


A  Note  on  Lutheran  Union  21 

There  are  several  points  which,  in  our  humble  judgment, 
have  not  been  made  sufficiently  clear  by  the  opponents  of 
the  Missouri  dogmatics :  namely,  the  importance  and  or- 
ganic relation  of  the  Call  and  Illumination  in  the  Order  of 
Salvation;  the  ethical  and  psychical  character  of  con- 
version ;  the  real  nature  of  a  free  will ;  the  Holy  Spirit's 
movements  in  creating  and  implanting  spiritual  life  in 
the  soul,  and  thus  enabling  freedom  and  faith ;  the  danger 
of  misunderstanding  the  formula,  "election  in  view  of 
faith."  Moreover,  the  books  above  mentioned,  having 
been  issued  some  years  ago,  could  not  anticipate  all  the 
arguments  of  Dr.  Pieper  in  his  last  work.* 

The  foregoing  are  our  reasons  for  composing  this 
thesis.  In  the  closing  chapter  we  shall  try  to  outline  a 
broader  and  more  satisfactory  platform  for  fraternal 
fellowship  and  co-operation  in  the  Lutheran  Church  of 
America.  On  the  basis  there  proposed  we  believe  all 
true  Lutherans  can  unite  and  work,  until  the  time  comes 
when,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  may 
be  able  to  adjust  our  confessional  and  doctrinal  differ- 
ences ;  and  then  organic  union  may  be  in  sight.  We  shall 
now  proceed  to  review  Dr.  Pieper's  book  with  as  much 
candor,  fairness,  courtesy  and  thoroughness  as  we  can 
command. 


*At  this  writing  (or  rather  proof-reading)  the  English 
edition  of  this  brochure  by  Dr.  Schuette  and  his  committee, 
issued  for  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  has  not  yet  appeared,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  say  how  fully  all  the  points  have  been  de- 
veloped. There  is  little  doubt,  however,  that  the  reply  is  masterly. 


Ill 

THE  LUTHERAN  REGULATIVE  DOCTRINE 

A  SERIOUS  doctrinal  blemish  in  the  book  under 
review  is  this :  It  puts  into  a  minor  place  the 
material,  chief  and  regulative  principle  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, namely,  justification  by  faith.  This  was  the  doc- 
trine which  Luther  made  central  and  pivotal,  and  by 
which  he  judged  and  decided  all  other  doctrines  in  the 
Biblical  system.  He  contended  ever  that  justification 
by  faith  alone  was  "the  sign  of  a  standing  or  a  falling 
Church."  He  would  not  subordinate  this  doctrine  to  any 
other  doctrine,  or  to  all  other  doctrines  combined,  but 
judged  all  by  it,  and  assembled  and  co-ordinated  all 
around  it.  This  is  also  the  view-point  of  the  Augustana. 
To  our  mind  it  is  the  view-point  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord. If  the  eleventh  chapter  is  read  and  studied  in  the 
search-light  of  this  cardinal  principle,  it  will  be  much 
more  easily  comprehended  and  evaluated. 

But  what  is  the  impression  made  upon  one  who  care- 
fully reads  Dr.  Pieper's  book?  That  another  doctrine  has 
been  introduced,  not  only  as  the  chief  one,  but  also  as 
the  regulative  one;  as  it  were,  the  major  premise.  That 
doctrine  is  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees,  the  divine 
sovereignty,  election,  predestination.  This  is  the  begin- 
ning and  the  end,  the  principal  view-point ;  it  controls 
everything;  it  never  for  a  moment  slips  out  of  sight; 
all  other  doctrines  must  take  a  secondary  place.  Even 
faith  is  treated  meagerly,  is  subjected  to  election,  is  taken 


The  Lutheran  Regulative  Doctrine  23 

quite  out  of  the  sphere  of  freedom,  and  is  so  miscon- 
ceived as  to  be  made  a  mechanical  thing,  instead  of  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  act  it  is  always  represented  to  be  in 
the  Bible  and  the  Lutheran  Confessions.  According  to 
this  dissertation,  man  is  not  elected  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  he  accepts  Christ  by  faith,  but  he  both  has  faith 
and  is  justified  because  he  has  been  elected  unto  salva- 
tion from  eternity  by  a  mysterious  decree.  If  we  mistake 
not,  this  is  reversing  the  Lutheran  order,  making  divine 
sovereignty  central,  and  crowding  justification  by  faith 
off  to  one  side.  Luther  and  his  co-laborers  did  not  begin 
with  an  insoluble  mystery  pertaining  to  the  Godhead 
before  the  world  was,  but  with  the  plain  and  simple 
revelation  of  Christ  and  His  way  of  justification  by 
faith ;  and  then,  if  they  wanted  to  work  back  to  the 
mysteries,  they  would  judge  them  all  in  the  light  of  the 
simple  revelation.  It  was  the  Calvinists  who  began  with 
the  divina  decreta,  and  made  everything  else  subservient 
to  God's  absolute  sovereignty.  We  beg  pardon  for  hav- 
ing to  say  it,  but  just  in  this  one  respect  the  Missouri 
view-point  is  more  like  that  of  the  Calvinists  and  less  like 
that  of  the  Lutherans.  We  hasten  to  say,  however,  for 
fear  of  misunderstanding,  that  Missouri's  explanation  of 
the  doctrine  of  election  itself  is  far  from  being  Cal- 
vinistic;  is,  in  fact,  anti-Calvinistic,  as  has  been  shown. 
Are  we  not  correct  in  saying  that  the  central  and 
regulative  principle  of  our  Missouri  friends  is  election, 
not  justification  by  faith?  Just  note  how  little  faith  is 
discussed  in  this  treatise ;  how  little  it  is  urged ;  what  a 
small  and  insignificant  place  it  occupies  in  comparison 
with  election ;  how  it  must  ever  step  aside  to  make  room 
for  predestination;  how  belittlingly  the  intuitu  fidei  is 


24  Election  and  Conversion 

represented,  as  if  faith  were  a  matter  of  small  im- 
portance; note,  too,  that  justification  is  scarcely  men- 
tioned in  the  entire  production;  and  yet  with  Paul  the 
great  question  was  how  a  man  could  be  accounted  right- 
eous before  God.  This  is  the  doctrine,  too,  that  saved 
Luther  and  made  him  the  reformer  he  was ;  the  doctrine 
to  which  he  always  gave  the  primacy  in  his  theological 
system.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  he  ever  would  have 
made  Rome  tremble,  that  he  ever  would  have  changed 
the  currents  of  religious  and  civil  history,  if  he  had  spent 
much  of  his  time  in  debating  the  order  of  God's  decrees 
in  eternity?  Indeed,  he  always  deprecated  controversies 
on  this  very  subject,  as  any  one  may  see  by  reading  the 
quotations  presented  in  Jacobs'  "Summary  of  the 
Christian  Faith"  (pp.  576-580). 

Perchance  the  reply  will  be  made  that  our  Missouri 
friends  do  not  mean  to  neglect  or  depreciate  faith  and 
justification,  but  that  just  now  the  doctrine  of  election 
is  the  one  in  dispute,  and  for  that  reason  it  occupies  the 
foremost  place  in  the  controversy.  That  point  we  might 
readily  admit,  if  it  were  not  for  the  fact  that  our  Con- 
cordia friends  deal  with  every  passage  of  Scripture,  even 
the  passages  that  refer  to  faith  and  justification,  from 
the  view-point  of  election.  Note  their  theological  method  : 
If  faith  seems  to  come  in  the  way  of  election,  then  faith 
must  step  aside,  never  election.  Thus  did  not  Paul ;  thus 
did  not  Luther,  who  quotes  approvingly  the  salient  advice 
of  Staupitz :  "Begin  with  the  wounds  of  Christ ;  then 
all  arguing  concerning  Predestination  will  come  to  an 
end"  (Jacobs,  ut  supra,  578).  Again  in  Dr.  Pieper's 
disposition  toward  intuitu  fidei,  he  seems  to  treat  faith 
as  if  it  were  so  insignificant  a  thing    that  it  would  be 


The  Lutheran  Regulative  Doctrine  25 

absurd  to  think  that  it  could  in  the  least  have  affected 
God's  eternal  self-determinations.  This  surely  is  not  the 
servile  place  given  to  faith  in  John  3:16;  nor  in  Paul's 
preaching  to  the  Philippian  jailor ;  nor  in  Christ's  words 
when  He  said :  "Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled ;  believe 
in  God,  and  believe  in  me ;"  nor  when  He  said :  "As 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so 
must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever 
believeth  on  Him  may  have  eternal  life." 

How  much  the  Bible  makes  of  faith !  How  little, 
comparatively,  of  election!  Everywhere  Christ  insisted 
on  faith  and  belief,  while  scarcely  more  than  half  a  dozen 
times  does  He  refer  to  "the  elect,"  and  almost  always  in 
passages  whose  intrepretation  is  more  or  less  difficult. 
Note  how  often  faith  is  mentioned  in  the  epistles.  Two 
of  Paul's  epistles — Romans  and  Galatians — were  ex- 
pressly written  to  prove  that  men  are  justified  by  faith, 
and  not  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  or  their  own  righteous- 
ness. The  letter  to  the  Hebrews  devotes  a  whole  chapter 
— the  11th — to  a  panegyric  on  the  heroes  of  faith.  It 
declares  that  "without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please 
Him;  for  he  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  He 
is,  and  that  He  is  a  rewarder  of  all  them  that  diligently 
seek  Him."  Our  point  is  that  faith  is  the  outstanding 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  and  therefore  should 
take  precedence  of  a  doctrine  like  election,  which  is 
treated  more  incidentally. 

Another  mistake  of  the  book  is  the  constant  as- 
sumption that  faith  is  a  matter  of  merit.  That  this  is 
made  a  major  premise  is  obvious  from  the  fact  that  Dr. 
Pieper  almost  always  joins  the  two  terms,  "in  view  of 
faith"  and  man's  "good  conduct,"  thus  putting  them  in- 


26  Election  and  Conversion 

to  the  same  category ;  also  the  fact  that  he  constantly 
charges  those  who  accept  the  doctrine  of  intuitu  fidei 
with  Synergism — that  is,  with  thinking  that  God  elects 
men  on  account  of  some  merit  in  themselves,  some 
natural  goodness. 

No  true  Lutheran  has  ever  taught  that  there  is  merit 
in  faith.  The  fact  is,  Paul,  for  this  very  reason,  says 
we  are  justified  through  faith  and  not  by  works  or  the 
deeds  of  the  law.  Note  how  clearly  Paul  puts  it  (Rom. 
3:27,  28):  ''Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded. 
By  what  law?  of  works?  Nay,  but  by  the  law  of  faith. 
Therefore  we  conclude  that  man  is  justified  by  faith 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  Again  (Rom.  4:16): 
"For  this  cause  it  is  of  faith  that  it  may  be  according  to 
grace."  In  the  preceding  chapter,  verses  24  and  25,  he 
says:  "Being  justified  freely  by  His  grace  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith,  in  His  blood,"  etc. 
In  one  place  he  says  we  are  justified  by  faith,  in  another 
by  grace,  showing  that  in  either  case  it  is  God's  grace 
that  justifies.  And  here  is  a  classical  passage,  and  a 
decisive  one  (Eph.  2:8,  9):  "For  by  grace  have  ye 
been  saved  through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves ; 
it  is  the  gift  of  God ;  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should 
boast." 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  faith  has  been  made,  in  Scrip- 
ture, the  channel  through  which  justification  comes  to 
man  for  the  very  reason  that  it  will  exclude  all  human 
merit,  and  make  man's  salvation  a  pure  work  of  God's 
grace.  Sola  gratia — it  is  the  teaching  of  God's  Holy 
Word.  Precisely  the  same  is  the  teaching  of  our 
Lutheran    theologies    that    firmly    uphold    the    material 


The  Lutheran  Regulative  Doctrine  27 

principle  of  the  Reformation  and  the  regulative  doc- 
trine of  Lutheran  theology.  We  always  say,  Justificatio 
propter  Christum  per  fidem,  never  propter  fidem  per 
Christum.  Salvation  comes  to  the  believer  on  account 
of  the  merits  of  Christ  through  faith,  not  the  reverse. 
It  is  not  faith  itself,  but  only  its  object — Christ  and  His 
vicarious  work — that  has  merit,  and  is  the  ground  of 
salvation.     (See  Jacobs,  ut  supra,  page  190.) 

From  the  very  nature  of  faith  it  can  have  no  merit. 
Faith  is  simply  the  act  of  the  soul  by  which  it  accepts 
God's  gift  of  salvation.  There  surely  can  be  no  merit 
in  a  poor,  unworthy,  guilty  sinner  accepting  the  grace 
which  God  gratuitously  offers  him.  No ;  he  feels  so 
unworthy  that  it  seems  to  be  even  a  shame  to  accept 
salvation  at  the  hands  of  a  justly  offended  God.  The 
fact  is,  the  necessity  of  simply  accepting  the  gratuity, 
without  the  ability  to  do  anything  to  make  him  deserving, 
accentuates  and  enhances  his  unworthiness.  If  it  were 
forced  upon  him  nolens  volens,  he  would  not  feel  half 
so  unworthy.  If  a  beggar,  who  has  never  served  you 
in  any  way,  but  has  rather  been  a  parasite  on  society, 
comes  hungry  to  your  door,  and  you  proffer  him  food, 
there  is  no  merit  in  his  simply  reaching  out  his  hand 
and  taking  the  benefaction.  No  more  is  there  any  merit 
in  the  unworthy,  but  penitent,  sinner  taking  the  gift  of 
salvation. 

Neither  does  such  a  sinner  feel  that  he  deserves  any- 
thing on  account  of  his  faith.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
act  of  faith  that  ministers  to  pride  or  that  gives  room 
for  boasting.  It  is  rather  the  impenitent  sinner  who 
boasts  of  his  merits,  and  shows  a  self-righteous  spirit, 
and  says  he  needs  nothing  from  God,  and  does  not  care 
for  his  proffered  pardon  and  salvation. 


28  Election  and  Conversion 

Now,  what  is  the  connection  between  this  discussion 
and  the  doctrine  of  election?  It  is  this:  Even  if  God 
did,  by  virtue  of  his  foreknowledge,  elect  believers  unto 
salvation,  in  view  of  their  faith,  it  would  not  destroy 
the  heavenly  doctrine  of  sola  gratia,  because  faith  simply 
accepts  the  gratuity  from  the  hands  of  the  God  of  love 
and  mercy.  In  view  of  the  fact,  therefore,  that  justifi- 
cation by  faith  connotes  salvation  by  grace  alone,  we 
would  not  deem  it  unworthy  of  the  wise  and  holy  God 
to  predestine  unto  eternal  life  those  who  He  foresaw 
from  eternity  would  believe  on  the  Redeemer  whom  He 
foreordained  from  eternity  to  send  to  them.  If  He  fore- 
ordained that  men  should  be  saved  at  all,  if  they  fell 
into  sin,  and  if  He  foreordained  that  they  should  be  saved 
through  faith  in  Christ  (as  He  did),  surely  it  would  not 
be  out  of  accord  with  His  whole  wonderful  and  gracious 
scheme,  if  He  should  have  foreordained  that  those  who 
He  foresaw  would  exercise  such  faith  should  be  chosen 
and  kept  unto  eternal  life.  So  we  think  that  the  ethical 
objection  to  the  intuitu  fidei  doctrine  has  been  removed. 
Surely,  if  God  honors  faith  so  much  as  to  make  it  the 
vehicle  of  justification  in  time,  it  would  not  derogate 
from  His  honor  for  Him  to  have  taken  it  into  considera- 
tion in  the  counsels  of  eternity.  God  must  have  thought 
a  good  deal  of  faith,  or  He  would  not  have  elected  from 
eternity  that  men  should  be  justified  and  saved  through 
faith.  The  Biblical  grounds  for  this  doctrine  will  be 
shown  in  a  later  chapter. 

Let  us  put  the  matter  in  another  way.  What  was  it 
that  predetermined  God  to  send  His  Son  into  the  world  ? 
Was  it  not  the  fact  that  he  foresaw  that  man  would  sin  ? 
Thus  we  read  of  "the  Lamb  that  was  slain  from  the 


The  Lutheran  Regulative  Doctrine  29 

foundation  of  the  world."  So  it  is  plain  that  God  must 
have  foreordained  the  whole  plan  of  redemption  in  view 
of  sin.  Then  why  might  He  not  predetermine  salva- 
tion in  viezv  of  faith f  If  He  could  foreknow  that  Adam 
would  sin,  could  He  not  also  foreknow  every  person  who 
would  believe  and  continue  in  Christ  to  the  end?  And 
if  foreordination  in  view  of  sin  would  not  dishonor  Him, 
why  would  foreordination  in  view  of  faith  dishonor 
Him?  All  the  more  so,  since  sin  is  something  entirely 
obnoxious  to  Him  and  contrary  to  His  will,  while  faith 
is  a  holy  principle,  an  activity  begotten  in  the  soul  of 
the  believer  by  His  Spirit. 

In  proof  that  we  have  correctly  represented 
Missouri's  position  in  saying  that  God  foreordained  the 
plan  of  redemption  through  Christ  in  view  of  sin,  we 
quote  from  Dr.  A.  L.  Graebner's  "Doctrinal  Theology," 
page  43,  under  the  locus,  "Decree  of  Redemption:" 

"The  decree  of  redemption  is  an  eternal  act  of  God, 
whereby  He  graciously,  and  with  divine  wisdom,  pur- 
posed to  work,  in  the  fullness  of  time,  through  the  Son 
made  manifest  in  the  flesh,  a  redemption  of  mankind,  and 
to  prepare  a  way  of  salvation  for  the  whole  human  race, 
whose  fall  He  had  foreseen,  but  not  decreed." 

What  could  be  more  lucidly  stated  than  that?  So, 
since  God  foreknew  the  fall  of  man,  and,  in  view  of  it, 
foreordained  a  plan  of  redemption.  He  must  have  fore- 
ordained all  the  articulations  and  movements  of  that 
plan;  therefore  He  could  also  foresee  the  faith  and  per- 
severance of  the  elect,  and  choose  them  in  view  of  their 
acceptance  of  His  mercy.  The  weakness  of  the  above 
definition  by  Dr.  Graebner  is,  it  fails  to  say  how  God 
eternally  purposed  to  save  men — namely,  through  faith. 


30  Election  and  Conversion 

We  regret  to  say  that  faith  is  not  even  mentioned.  Does 
not  this  fact  prove  our  earlier  contention — that  the  pre- 
destinarians  always  make  election,  instead  of  justification 
by  faith,  the  ruling  doctrine?  Is  it  not  a  peculiar  over- 
sight that  an  elaborate  definition  of  "the  decree  of  re- 
demption" should  ignore  faith,  which  is  included  in  the 
"gospel  in  nuce,"  as  Luther  called  John  3:16? 

Dr.  Pieper  is  so  jealous  of  his  favorite  doctrine  that 
he  will  not  admit  for  a  moment  that  faith  might  have 
been  antecedent  to  election.  That  view,  he  thinks,  would 
dishonor  God.  Yet,  if  he  insists  on  speaking  of  eternal 
things  in  the  terms  of  time,  he  must  admit  that  the  fall 
of  man  into  sin  was  antecedent  to  the  foreordination  of 
the  whole  gracious  plan  of  redemption.  If  the  one  does 
not  detract  from  God's  glory,  neither  does  the  other.  But 
the  very  fact  that  he  will  not  permit  faith  to  precede 
election  proves  what  we  have  said  before — that  election, 
not  justifying  faith,  is  the  regnant  doctrine  in  his  theo- 
logical system. 


IV 
LOCATING    THE    MYSTERY 

NEXT  we  must  consider  the  locus,  so  clearly  stated 
by  Professor  Pieper,  as  to  just  where  the  mystery 
of  election  lies.  He  locates  it  in  God's  diverse  ways  of 
treating  men — electing  some  and  leaving  others  to  their 
fate.  It  is  not  that  God  does  not  want  the  finally 
obdurate  to  be  saved;  that  Dr.  Pieper  asserts  and  re- 
asserts many  times.  We  are  thankful  that  our  Missouri 
brethren  take  this  view,  and  insist  upon  it  so  strongly. 
It  is  the  chief  thing  that  differentiates  them  from  the 
Calvinists.  However,  the  mystery  is,  why  some  are  saved 
and  others  are  not,  seeing  all  are  alike  guilty  and  all 
alike  under  spiritual  disability.  That,  according  to  our 
Missouri  brethren,  is  the  inexplicable  mystery  of  the  di- 
vine election.  God  alone  knows  why  some  are  elected 
and  others  are  not,  and  He  has  kept  the  secret  in  the 
inner  chamber  of  His  own  counsels. 

Now  we  venture  to  say,  humbly  and  honestly,  that 
by  their  speculations  on  the  eternal  decree,  our  good 
brethren  have  confused  matters,  and  have  placed  the 
mystery  where  the  Bible  does  not  place  it,  but  where,  on 
the  contrary,  the  Bible  gives  the  very  clearest  reason  why 
some  people  are  saved  and  others  lost.  For  a  time  let 
us  try  to  forget  what  God  may  have  done  in  eternity, 
and  let  us  see  what  He  has  said  and  done  in  time  through 
His  gracious  revelation.  Thus  we  may  be  able  to  de- 
termine the  ground  of  His  discriminations  between  the 


32  Election  and  Conversion 

finally  saved  and  the  finally  lost.  What  does  the  Bible 
say?  We  might  cite  hundreds  of  proof-texts,  but  a  few 
of  the  outstanding  ones  will  suffice. 

Note,  first,  how  Jesus  Christ  Himself  makes  the 
distinction  in  John  3:16-19:  "God  so  loved  the  world 
that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  on  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life.  .  .  .  He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  judged;  he 
that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  he 
hath  not  believed  on  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  And 
this  is  the  judgment,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world, 
and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light,  because 
their  deeds  were  evil."  Here  Christ  makes  it  very  clear 
why  some  are  saved  and  others  lost;  the  former  believe 
on  Christ;  the  latter  do  not  believe  on  Him.  So  our 
Lord  does  not  seem  to  make  any  mystery  over  the  dif- 
ference of  treatment  that  God  accords  to  the  two  classes 
of  men.  Why,  then,  should  men  go  back  to  something 
that  occurred  in  the  eternal  counsels  of  God,  and  find 
a  mystery? 

Let  us  note  some  other  passages.  We  know  that 
faith  and  repentance  always  go  together;  one  connotes 
the  other.  At  the  beginning  of  Christ's  ministry  He  said : 
"Repent  ye ;  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  In 
Mark's  gospel  it  is  put  in  this  way:  "Now  after  John 
was  delivered  up,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee,  preaching  the 
gospel  of  God,  and  saying.  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand :  repent  ye,  and  believe  the 
gospel."  So  again  the  conditions  of  salvation  are  made 
repentance  and  faith.  Why  cannot  we  preach  this  truth 
in  all  its  simplicity  just  as  Jesus  did?  At  another  place 
our  Saviour  said:     "Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  like- 


Locating  the  Mystery  33 

wise  perish."  So  those  who  perish  are  those  who  do  not 
repent,  implying  clearly  that  those  who  do  repent  shall 
be  saved.  Here  is  another  classical  passage  (Mark 
16:15,  16):  "And  He  said  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation." 
Then  what?  "He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptised  shall  be 
saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  condemned." 
Here  again  it  is  faith  and  un faith  that  make  the  differ- 
ence. Our  point  is  that  Christ  does  not  posit  the  differ- 
ence in  the  destiny  of  saints  and  sinners  in  God's  eternal 
decree,  but  in  man's  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  gospel. 

When  the  Philippian  jailer  exclaimed  in  his  terror, 
"Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?"  Paul  and  Silas  took 
no  time  to  speculate  about  the  mysteries  either  of  faith 
or  of  election,  but  simply  answered :  "Believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  thou  and  thy 
house."  And  we  know  the  sequel.  Oh !  we  need  more 
simple,  childlike  faith,  and  less  refined  speculation. 

Let  us  look  at  another  classical  passage,  a  veritable 
sedes  doctrinae,  in  the  language  of  theology.  It  is  found 
in  Paul's  famous  foreordination  thesis,  on  which  the  ad- 
vocates of  election  depend  for  many  of  their  arguments, 
Rom.  8-11.  One  should  read  all  these  chapters,  not  only 
the  eighth  and  ninth ;  indeed,  it  is  best  to  begin  at  Rom. 
1,  and  read  on  through  Rom.  11.  Paul's  argument 
here  refers  to  the  rejection  of  Israel  and  the  acceptance 
of  the  Gentiles.  After  all  he  says  about  the  election  of 
some  and  the  rejection  of  others,  he  closes  the  discussion 
of  his  great  theme  in  Rom.  11:17-36,  a  part  of  which 
we  will  quote  according  to  the  beautiful  version  of  the 
Twentieth  Century  New  Testament.  We  should  note  that 
the  "cultivated  olive"  refers  to  the  Jews,  and  the  "wild 


34  Election  and  Conversion 

olive"  to  the  Gentiles.  Says  Paul:  "Some,  however,  of 
the  branches  were  broken  off,  and  you,  who  were  only  a 
wild  olive,  were  grafted  in  among  them,  and  came  to 
share  with  them  the  root  which  is  the  source  of  the  rich- 
ness of  the  cultivated  olive.  Yet  do  not  exult  over  the 
other  branches.  But,  if  you  do  exult  over  them,  remem- 
ber that  you  do  not  support  the  root,  but  the  root  sup- 
ports you.  But  some  branches,  you  will  say,  were  broken 
off,  so  that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  True ;  it  was  because 
of  their  zvant  of  faith  that  they  were  broken  off,  and  it 
is  because  of  your  faith  that  you  are  standing.  Do  not 
think  too  highly  of  yourself,  but  beware.  For  if  God 
did  not  spare  the  natural  branches,  neither  will  He  spare 
you.  See,  then,  both  the  goodness  and  the  severity  of 
God — his  severity  toward  those  who  fell,  and  his  good- 
ness toward  you,  provided  you  continue  to  confide  in 
that  goodness ;  otherwise  you  also  will  be  cut  off.  And 
they,  too,  if  they  do  not  continue  in  their  unbelief,  will 
be  grafted  in ;  for  God  has  it  in  His  power  to  graft  them 
in  again." 

So,  after  all  Paul's  discussion  of  foreordination,  he 
concludes  that  it  was  Israel's  unbelief  that  cut  them  off, 
and  it  was  through  faith  that  the  Gentiles  were  grafted 
in.  Paul's  reason  for  turning  from  the  Jews  to  the 
Gentiles  is  given  plainly  in  Acts  13 :46.  "Seeing  ye 
thrust  it  (the  Word)  from  you  .  .  .  lo,  we  turn  to  the 
Gentiles." 

So  our  point  is  that  the  Bible  does  not  make  a 
mystery  out  of  the  fact  that  some  people  are  saved.  It 
reveals  that  just  as  clearly  as  it  reveals  why  the  repro- 
bate are  finally  condemned.  Why  should  the  Missouri- 
ans  say  that  one  is  clearly  revealed  and  the  other  is  a 


Locating  the  Mystery  35 

profound  mystery,  when  the  Bible  tells  us  just  as  clearly 
why  some  are  saved  as  why  others  are  lost?  "He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  condemned."  Ponder  the  two  statements; 
is  not  one  just  as  expHcit  as  the  other?  Again:  "He 
that  believeth  on  Him  is  not  condemned ;  he  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned  already."  Compare  the  two  statements. 
Is  not  the  one  as  unmistakable  as  the  other?  Why  locate 
the  mystery  here  where  God  speaks  plainly.*  It  is  be- 
cause, instead  of  accepting  the  Bible's  simple  teaching, 
we  have  tried  to  cipher  out  some  things  that  are  too 
deep  for  our  limited  capacities.  We  have  tried  to  posit 
mystery  at  a  certain  point,  as  if,  in  the  ultimate  analysis, 
the  whole  world  of  both  nature  and  grace  were  not  be- 
yond our  understanding.  Who  can  understand  the 
eternal  decrees  of  the  absolute  God?  Ah,  yes,  true 
enough!  But  you  need  not  go  so  far  afield  to  find  the 
inscrutable.  Who  knows  what  matter  is?  Who  knows 
what  mind  is?  Who  can  figure  out  the  mysterious  con- 
nection between  the  mind  and  the  brain?  Who  can  tell 
how  the  mind  can  determine  itself  in  liberty,  how  it  can 
initiate  motion  and  action  ?  So  in  regard  to  faith.  Who 
can  tell  how  we  can  lay  hold  on  Christ  by  faith?    Who 

♦Missouri  accepts  the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
as  part  of  her  creed.  This  is  what  the  Apology  says  (Jacobs' 
edition,  page  150)  :  "And  this  faith  makes  a  distinction  between 
those  by  whom  salvation  is  attained,  and  those  by  whom  it  is 
not  attained.  Faith  makes  the  distinction  between  the  worthy 
and  the  unworthy,  because  eternal  life  has  been  promised  to  the 
justified;   and   faith  justifies." 

The  Formula  of  Concord  says  (page  527):  "In  Him 
(Christ),  therefore,  we  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the 
Father,  who,  in  His  eternal  divine  counsel,  determined  that  He 
would  save  no  one  except  those  who  acknowledge  His  Son, 
Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him." 


36  Election  and  Conversion 

can  define  the  precise  point  where  grace  and  freedom 
meet  and  coalesce,  and  where  faith  is  sufficiently  enabled 
by  the  power  of  God  to  become  self-active?  Yes,  there 
are  mysteries  all  along  the  line.* 

And  yet  how  plain  some  things  are — the  things  that 
are  practical  and  that  we  need  to  know.  We  know  that 
we  have  bodies  and  that  we  have  souls ;  that  we  feel  with 
our  nerves  of  sensation ;  that  we  cognize,  feel  and  will 
with  our  minds ;  that,  if  we  are  Christians,  we  have 
accepted  salvation  by  faith,  and  that  not  in  our  strength, 
and  yet  that  we  were  not  compelled  to  believe;  that,  if 
we  had  not  accepted  God's  gift,  we  could  not  have  had 
it:  that  it  was  all  by  grace,  even  the  enabling  of  our 
faith.  Some  dialectician  may  come  along  and  challenge 
us  thus:  "Prove  all  these  things."  We  reply,  we  can- 
not prove  them;  we  know  them;  they  are  part  of  our 
consciousness  and  experience.  So  it  is  with  the  plan  of 
salvation ;  God  has  clearly  taught  in  His  word  that  the 
dividing  line  between  the  justified  and  the  lost  is  faith  and 
unbelief.  What  He  has  revealed  in  time  must  have  been 
predetermined  in  eternity.  If  God  in  time  makes  faith — 
or,  at  least,  the  willingness  to  have  faith,  as  we  shall 
show  later — the  turning-point  in  the  sinner's  career.  He 
must  have  foreseen  this  contingency  in  eternity  and 
chosen  accordingly.  This  would  not  be  inconsistent  with 
His  exalted  character,  nor  detract  from  His  glory,  nor 
nullify  sola  gratia. 

*At  one  place  Dr.  Pieper  declares  that  no  man  is  a  "good 
theologian"  who  tries  to  explain  the  mystery  of  the  decrees 
relative  to  election.  We  maintain  that  we  have  attempted  to 
explain  no  mystery  in  the  foregoing  argument,  but  have  simply 
stated  what  is  the  plain  teaching  of  God's  Word.  How  God  can 
foreknow  contingent  events,  and  yet  leave  a  moral  agent  free, 
is  a  matter  we  leave  to  His  omniscience. 


Locating  the  Mystery  37 

Why  should  it  derogate  from  God's  glory  and  grace 
for  Him  to  elect  in  foresight  of  faith?  Is  faith  so  small 
and  insignificant  a  thing  in  God's  eyes?  Not  according 
to  the  Bible:  "Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please 
Him;"  "Being  justified  by  faith;"  "That  whosoever 
believeth  on  Him  might  not  perish;"  "This  is  the  work 
of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  Him  whom  He  hath  sent ;" 
"Neither  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith, 
which  worketh  by  love;"  "This  is  the  victory  that  over- 
cometh  the  world,  even  our  faith ;"  "Faith  is  the  sub- 
stance of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not 
seen ;"  "By  faith"  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Moses, 
and  all  the  rest  were  sustained  and  performed  their 
mighty  works.  The  Lutheran  Church  also  gives  to  faith 
this  exalted  place.  It  is  not  belittling  to  God  to  elect 
in  view  of  faith.  In  any  case  He  must  have  had  faith  in 
mind  in  eternity,  for  He  elected  to  justify  and  save  sin- 
ners through  faith. 

Further,  if  election  is  an  inscrutable  mystery,  kept 
secret  in  God's  eternal  counsel,  how  does  Missouri  know 
that  it  was  not  made  in  view  of  faith?  That  would 
imply  a  good  deal  of  knowledge  about  an  inscrutable 
mystery.  Again,  according  to  Missouri,  each  individual 
who  is  finally  saved  was  predestined  unto  faith,  which 
must  mean  that  when  he  was  elected,  his  faith  was  elected 
with  him.  That  view  eliminates  every  vestige  of  free- 
dom from  faith,  and  therefore  spells  "irresistible  grace." 
Missouri  also  teaches — at  least,  she  did  some  years  ago — 
that  "God  gives  richer  grace  to  the  elect  than  to  the 
non-elect"  (see  Tressel's  work,  page  600).  The  con- 
clusion must  be  unconditional  election. 

The  St.   Louis  theologians  are,  we  think,  in  error 


38  "        Election  and  Conversion 

when  they  set  up  an  antinomy  between  election  and 
freedom;  for  since  God  in  eternity  elected  to  create  free 
beings,  He  must  have  also  in  eternity  elected  to  respect 
their  freedom,  and  relate  Himself  thereto.  This  prin- 
ciple does  not  subtract  from  His  glory,  grace  and  power ; 
it  only  exalts  them,  for  a  God  who  can  respect  and 
permit  a  moral  agent's  autonomy,  and  at  the  same  time 
carry  out  his  own  vast  plans,  must  be  infinite  in  all  His 
perfections. 

There  is  always  an  element  of  freedom  in  faith. 
Otherwise  it  would  not  be  the  gift  of  God,  but  would 
be  something  forcibly  imposed.  While  no  man  can  be- 
lieve on  Christ  by  his  own  natural  powers  (for  man  is 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins),  yet  when  faith  is  enabled 
by  God's  grace  in  regeneration,  it  must  lay  hold  upon 
Christ  freely.  God  will  not  force  any  man  to  accept 
Christ  by  faith ;  nor  will  God  do  man's  believing  for 
him.  When  faith  is  empowered  by  God's  Spirit,  man 
must  exercise  that  power.  Even  Dr.  Walter  once  said: 
"He  who  opposes  not  merely  his  natural  resistance  to  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  obstinate  and 
obdurate  resistance,  him  God  Himself  cannot  then  help; 
for  God  will  force  no  one  to  conversion;  a  forced  con- 
version is  no  conversion."  (Tressel's  work,  page  171, 
quoted  from  Walters  "Postille,"  p.  91.) 

Looking  upon  faith  as  a  matter  of  merit  is  the 
fatal  error  of  Missouri.  It  colors  her  whole  theology. 
How  a  body  of  Lutherans,  studying  the  Bible,  the  con- 
fessions and  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  could  get  such 
a  mistaken  conception  of  simple  saving  faith  is  indeed 
a  mystery  to  us.  We  need  not  go  back  to  the  eternal 
divine  decrees  to  find  mysteries.     If   faith  is  the  free 


Locating  the  Mystery  39 

gift  of  God,  as  the  Bible  maintains,  how  can  it  be  a 
matter  of  merit?  And  if,  after  it  has  been  divinely 
bestowed  or  enabled,  it  simply  takes  God's  gratuity,  it 
surely  can  claim  no  desert. 

Whether  we  have  gathered  up  all  the  links  in  our 
argument  or  not,  this  is  sure :  we  have  made  faith  in 
Christ  the  central  and  regulative  principle,  just  as  Paul 
did,  just  as  Luther  did,  just  as  the  Augustana  and  all 
other  Lutheran  Symbols  do.  If  anything  in  our  Lutheran 
system  of  doctrine  must  bend,  or  step  aside,  it  cannot  be 
faith  in  Christ;  for  He  is  the  express  image  of  God's 
person,  His  perfect  revelation,  and  faith  in  Him  is  our 
only  hope. 

At  this  point,  and  while  we  think  of  it,  we  wish 
to  commend  a  gracious  statement  by  Dr.  Pieper.  He 
says  that  his  opponents  are  not  as  self-righteous  as  their 
theories  would  seem  to  imply;  that  their  hearts  are 
better  than  their  heads.  Down  in  their  Christian  hearts, 
he  says,  they  are  not  Pharisaical,  saying:  "We  thank 
thee.  Lord,  that  we  are  not  as  other  men  are."  They 
do  not  think  that  they  have  been  elected  and  saved  be- 
cause they  are  better  than  others  either  by  nature  or 
practice,  but  solely  on  account  of  the  goodness  and  grace 
of  God  and  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Dr.  Pieper  has  estimated  his  fellow-Christians  cor- 
rectly, and  is  to  be  commended  for  his  gentle  and  gen- 
erous judgment.  However,  while  he  thinks  their  hearts 
are  right,  though  their  heads  are  wrong,  we  think  both 
their  heads  and  hearts  are  right.  First,  they  know  that 
they  have  been  saved  by  grace  through  faith;  and  that 
not  of  themselves;  it  is  the  gift  of  God;  second,  they 
would  not  want  God  to  elect  them  out  of  the  mass  of 


40  Election  and  Conversion 

mankind  by  an  arbitrary  decision,  whether  in  time  or 
eternity;  but  if  he  gave  the  others  also  an  equal  and 
sufficient  chance  (gratia  sufficiens),  the  redeemed  can 
have  all  the  more  faith  in  Him,  because  of  the  very 
fact  that  He  is  just  and  impartial,  as  well  as  plenteous 
in  mercy  and  grace. 


V 
THE   HEART   OF   THE    QUESTION 

IT  may  be  thought  that  we  have  not  yet  reached  the 
heart  of  the  question,  because  we  have  not  defined 
faith,  nor  shown  how  it  is  begotten,  and  why  some 
persons  exercise  faith  while  others  do  not.  If  there  is 
any  mystery  about  the  implanting  of  faith  in  the  sinner's 
heart,  we  do  see  why  it  need  be  referred  back  to  God's 
eternal  decrees.  Of  course,  mystery  inheres  in  all  the 
operations  of  divine  grace  upon  the  soul. 

At  this  juncture  we  want  to  have  one  thing  distinctly 
understood ;  we  do  not  believe  that  God  ever  elected  any 
one  in  view  of  "good  conduct."  The  expression  may 
have  been  used  by  some  polemists  in  an  innocent  way, 
but  it  connotes  the  idea  of  human  desert,  and  of  that 
we  will  have  none.  We  decline  to  use  the  phrase  "good 
conduct"  in  connection  with  election,  or  to  be  responsi- 
ble for  it  in  any  way  or  in  any  degree.*    But  with  faith 


*It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Luther  himself  aflfords 
some  ground  for  using  the  word  "conduct."  He  says :  "Few 
are  chosen,  that  is,  few  so  deport  themselves  toward  the  gospel 
that  God  has  pleasure  in  them."  The  words  "conduct"  and 
"deportment"  are  synonymous.  We  note  too,  that  Professor 
R.  C.  H.  Lenski,  of  Capital  University,  Columbus,  Ohio,  defends 
the  word  "conduct"  in  a  recent  editorial  in  reply  to  Dr.  Pieper. 
With  the  explanation  given  by  Professor  Lenski,  who  attributes 
the  said  "conduct"  solely  to  the  grace  of  God,  there  can  be  no 
objection  to  the  word.  However,  for  ourself  we  decline  to  use 
it,  because  it  may  be  so  easily  misinterpreted.  It  seems  to  us, 
too,  to  assign  too  much  activity  and  positive  co-operation  to  man 
before  regeneration.     At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  point  out 


42  Election  and  Conversion 

it  is  different,  for  Paul  says,  "It  is  by  faith  that  it  might 
be  by  grace." 

In  discussing  the  nature  and  office  of  faith  we  must 
think  clearly  and  discriminate  sharply,  if  we  would  avoid 
error — the  error  of  Pelagianism,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  Calvinism,  on  the  other. 

At  this  point  we  wish  to  say  emphatically  that  we 
reject,  in  toto,  the  Pelagian  view,  because  it  does  not 
agree  with  the  unmistakable  teaching  of  God's  Word, 
which  says:  "Except  any  one  be  born  anew,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God;"  "Without  me  ye  can  do 
nothing;"  "No  man  cometh  to  me,  except  the  Father 
draw  him;"  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh; 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit ;"  "The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  neither  can  he  know  them, 
for  they  are  spiritually  discerned ;"  "The  mind  of  the 
flesh  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be ;  and  they  that  are 
in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God;"  "And  ye,  when  ye 
were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  .  .  .  but  God,  being 
rich  in  mercy,  for  His  great  love  wherewith  He  loved 
us,  even  when  we  were  dead  through  our  trespasses, 
made  us  alive  together  with  Christ;"  "And  you,  being 
dead  through  your  trespasses  and  the  uncircumcision  of 
your  flesh,"  etc. ;  "For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in 
my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing:  for  to  will  is  present 


that  Luther  was  not  very  much  afraid  of  using  apparently 
synergistic  expressions,  for  he  says :  "Let  every  man  sweep 
before  his  own  door ;  then  we  will  all  be  saved ;  then  it  will 
not  require  much  brooding  on  what  God  has  determined  in  His 
counsel,  as  to  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  be  saved."  (Tressel's 
work,  page  219). 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  43 

with  me,  but  to  do  that  which  is  good  is  not ;"  "By  nature 
the  children  of  wrath;"  "For  the  flesh  lusteth  against 
the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh;  for  these 
are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do 
the  things  that  ye  would ;"  "Behold,  I  was  brought  forth 
in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me" 
(Ps.  51 :5)  ;  "Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the 
leopard  his  spots?  Then  may  ye  also  do  good  who  are 
accustomed  to  do  evil"  (Jer.  13:23).  Many  more  texts 
might  be  cited.  Those  that  have  been  given  are,  we 
believe,  quoted  in  their  true  contextual  relation,  and  mean 
just  what  the  words  say.* 

Thus  the  Bible  teaches  that  a  fatal  moral  disability 
lies  upon  man's  spiritual  powers.  In  a  spiritual  sense 
man  is  said  to  be  "blind,"  "in  darkness,"  "carnally 
minded,"  "conceived  in  sin,"  "dead  in  sin,"  "in  the  gall 
of  bitterness  and  the  bonds  of  iniquity,"  "the  slave  of 
sin."  Man  certainly  is  by  nature  in  a  sad  state.  How, 
then,  can  man  be  saved  through  faith  when  he  has  by 
nature  not  even  a  moiety  of  ability  to  exercise  saving 
faith  ?  "Dead  in  trespasses  and  sins" — how  can  a  "dead" 
man  believe  on  Christ  and  accept  His  gift  of  salvation? 
We  are  trying  to  state  the  difficulty  just  as  strongly  as 
we  can ;  and  it  is  a  difficulty  that  the  Bible  itself  makes. 

Moreover,  the  difficulty  is  made  still  greater  by  the 
fact  that,  wherever  in  the  Bible  the  offer  of  grace  is 
made  to  man,  he  is  not  treated  as  if  he  were  a  dead 
man,  but  as  if  he  were  a  living  one,  and  even  a  free  and 
responsible  moral  agent.  Note  that  Christ  began  to 
preach  to  unregenerate  men  by  saying,  "Repent  ye,  and 


*Pelagianism  also  obliterates  the  distinction  between  nature 
and  grace,  and  for  that  reason,  too,  we  reject  it. 


44  Election  and  Conversion 

believe  the  gospel."  Why  command  them  to  do  what 
they  were  utterly  unable  to  do?  Nicodemus  was  an  lin- 
regenerate  man;  yet  Christ  talked  to  him  about  the  new 
birth,  told  him  not  to  marvel  about  it,  then  went  on  to 
tell  him  about  God  so  loving  the  world  that  He  gave 
His  only  begotten  Son  that  men  might  believe  on  Him 
and  be  saved.  What  incongruity  to  talk  to  a  "dead" 
man  about  faith  and  the  new  birth !  The  woman  at 
the  well  was  still  an  unregenerate  person  when  Christ 
told  her  about  the  water  of  life.  In  His  last  commission 
to  His  apostles  our  Lord  bade  them  preach  to  unre- 
generate men,  and,  strangely  enough,  added  that  those 
who  would  believe  their  message  would  be  saved ;  those 
who  rejected  it  would  be  condemned.  The  frightened 
Philippian  jailer  was  an  unregenerate  man  when  he 
cried  out  for  help;  yet  Paul  said  to  him,  "Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  Why 
bid  a  man  believe  when  he  couldn't? 

So  we  might  go  through  the  whole  New  Testament. 
But  the  same  method  obtains  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Isaiah  was  preaching  to  rank  sinners  when  he  said : 
"Come  now,  saith  the  Lord,  and  let  us  reason  together; 
though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,"  etc.  The  idea  of  God's 
proposing  to  reason  with  such  crass,  deep-dyed  sinners 
in  their  unconverted  state !  The  idea  of  asking  "dead" 
people  to  reason !  and  to  reason  with  Him,  the  all-wise 
and  eternal  God !  The  invitation,  "Ho,  every  one  that 
thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters,"  was  extended  to  uncon- 
verted people.  To  the  same  unconverted  lot  of  people 
(jod  said  through  the  prophet  (Isa.  55:  6,  7)  :  "Seek  ye 
the  Lord  while  He  may  be  found;  call  ye  upon  Him 
while  He  is  near:  let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  45 

the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts ;  and  let  him  return 
unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will  have  mercy  upon  him;  and 
to  our  God,  for  He  will  abundantly  pardon." 

Is  this  another  unsoluble  mystery?  If  so,  it  is  not  a 
mystery,  this  time,  of  God's  sovereign  decrees  in  eternity, 
but  a  mystery  of  conversion,  faith,  grace  and  freedom 
right  here  before  our  eyes  every  day.  So  we  need  not 
go  back  to  eternity  to  find  mysteries.  But  is  it  really 
a  mystery,  or  only  a  difficulty  of  human  speculation? 
The  plain  man,  if  a  Christian,  accepts  all  these  varied 
and  seemingly  diverse  statements  of  the  Bible,  and  never 
thinks  of  them  as  being  contradictory.  Why?  Because 
he  thinks  practically,  and  the  Bible  is  a  practical  book, 
and  expresses  itself  in  a  practical  way.  But  when  we 
get  to  prying  and  speculating,  we  at  once  get  into  con- 
fusion, especially  if  we  do  not  hold  all  the  facts  in  mind. 

Let  us  restate  the  difficulty  in  a  simple  and  concise 
way,  so  that  our  proposition  may  stand  out  clear-cut  be- 
fore our  thought:  On  the  one  hand,  the  Bible  plainly 
teaches  that  the  unconverted  man  is  dead  in  sin,  totally 
unable  to  believe  on  Christ ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  com- 
mands, urges  and  entreats  him,  while  still  unconverted, 
to  believe  on  Christ,  and  threatens  him  with  dire  punish- 
ment if  he  refuses.  Shall  we  stop  here,  throw  up  our 
hands,  and  call  it  an  inscrutable  mystery,  as  the  Synodi- 
cal  Conference  brethren  do  relative  to  election,  and  thus 
represent  the  Bible  as  a  bundle  of  contradictions,  and  so 
put  a  club  into  the  hands  of  the  skeptics  and  scoffers? 
Or  shall  we  think  more  acutely  and  exaltedly,  and  see 
whether  we  will  not  find  the  Bible  throughout  to  be  a 
book  of  wondrous  beauty,  of  perfect  harmony,  of  organic 
unity?     We  shall  try  to  pursue  the  latter  pathway;  it 


46  Election  and  Conversion 

will  not  be  easy,  not  so  easy,  perhaps,  as  the  other  way 
would  be,  but  we  hope  and  pray  that  it  may  be  worth 
while.  We  think  we  shall  be  able  to  steer  clear  of  the 
Scylla  of  Pelagianism  and  Synergism,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  the  Charybdis  of  unconditional  election,  on  the 
other ;  but  shall  uphold  and  magnify  the  blessed,  holy  and 
comforting  doctrines  of  justification  by  faith  alone  and 
salvation  by  grace  alone,  which  are  the  cardinal  and  cor- 
relating doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Let  us  walk 
slowly  and  think  patiently. 

First,  then,  the  unconverted  sinner  is  "dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins."  We  take  the  strongest  BibHcal  state- 
ment of  his  condition.  Being  spiritually  dead,  he  can 
do  nothing  toward  his  salvation ;  can  originate  no 
spiritual  motions.  But  worse  yet:  though  spiritually 
dead,  he  is  carnally  very  much  alive,  and  so  is  violently 
opposed  to  God.  Yes,  the  "dead"  sinner  is  full  of  ethical 
and  spiritual  contradictions,  just  as  a  vile  sinner  would 
naturally  be;  just  as  Paul  describes  the  woman  who 
follows  sinful  pleasure  as  being  "dead  while  she  liveth" 
(1  Tim.  5:6).  Dead  as  to  spiritual  things,  alive  as  to 
carnal  things. 

But  now  is  this  terrible  and  paradoxical  condition 
to  continue  always,  waxing  worse  and  worse?  Is  there 
no  eye  to  pity?  no  arm  to  save?  "Is  there  no  balm  in 
Gilead?  Is  there  no  physician  there?"  Does  God  know? 
Does  He  care  ?  Does  He  pity  ?  Will  He  intervene  ?  Yes, 
we  know  He  will;  we  know  He  has.  He  says  as  Jesus 
did :  "I  have  compassion  on  the  multitude ;"  "And  He 
had  compassion  on  them,  because  they  were  as  sheep 
not  having  a  shepherd;  and  He  began  to  teach  them." 
"God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only-begotten 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  47 

Son;"  "The  Son  of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost."  This  must  have  been  His  eternal  pur- 
pose, but  it  was  entirely  a  gracious  one,  and  in  nowise 
arbitrary.  Now,  having  devised  and  perfected  a  merciful 
and  gracious  plan  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ, 
what  does  God  do  to  and  for  those  sinners  who  are  so 
dead  to  spiritual  things  and  so  alive  to  carnal  things  ? 

He  sends  His  Holy  Spirit  to  apply  the  redemption 
through  the  holy  means  of  grace.  And  what  is  the 
Spirit's  initial  movement  in  performing  this  function? 
He  calls  sinners ;  through  the  Word  He  calls  them  to 
repentance.  Thanks  be  to  God  for  His  gracious  Voca- 
tion! What  a  clarion  call  it  is!  "Ho,  every  one  that 
thirsteth;  come  ye  to  the  waters;"  "Repent  ye,  and  be- 
lieve the  gospel ;"  "Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and 
are  heavy  laden;"  "Him  that  cometh  unto  me  I  will  in 
nowise  cast  out;"  "The  Spirit  and  the  Bride  say.  Come; 
and  he  that  heareth,  let  him  say,  Come;  and  he  that  is 
athirst,  let  him  come ;  and  whosoever  will,  let  him  take 
of  the  water  of  life  freely."  Hear  the  call  ringing  out 
clear  and  sweet,  line  upon  line,  precept  upon  precept. 

And  here  comes  in  our  precious  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  the  Word  of  God  as  the  means  of  grace,  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  always  accompanies  and  through  which  He 
always  operates.  "My  Word  shall  not  return  unto  me 
void,  but  shall  accomplish  that  which  I  please,  and  pros- 
per in  the  thing  whereunto  I  have  sent  it"  (Isa.  55:11). 
Now,  what  does  the  divine  call  through  the  law  and 
the  gospel  do  for  the  "dead"  sinner?  Nothing?  Abso- 
lutely nothing?  Does  it  leave  him  just  as  he  was?  To 
say  that,  would  be  to  deny  both  the  sincerity  and  the 
efficacy  of  the  Spirit's  Call.     What  does  the  heavenly 


48  Election  and  Conversion 

Call  do  for  the  "dead"  sinner  ?  It  stirs  him  to  wakeful- 
ness; it  brings  him  to  a  consciousness  of  his  condition. 
That  is  its  very  purpose.  Will  not  God  accomplish  His 
purpose?  Is  He  going  to  call  on  dead  men  to  wake  up 
and  accept  salvation,  and  yet  leave  them  utterly  dead? 
We  fear  some  men  have  theologized  so  much  about  re- 
generation, conversion  and  eternal  election  that  they  have 
overlooked  and  undervalued  the  importance,  grace, 
power  and  efficacy  of  the  divine  Call,  which,  we  main- 
tain, is  just  as  vital  a  link  or  movement  in  the  order  of 
salvation  as  any  other  part;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  pure 
grace,  too,  just  as  faith,  justification  and  conversion  are. 
Let  us  find  an  illustration  in  the  life  of  Christ.  He 
once  stood  before  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  and  simply 
called  to  the  dead  man,  "Lazarus,  come  forth."  What 
was  the  use  of  calling  to  a  dead  man?  Why,  Christ's 
call  was  accompanied  with  power,  as  His  Word  always 
is,  and  so  Lazarus  was  awakened  by  it,  and  as  soon  as 
he  was  aroused,  he  began  some  kind  of  movement,  not 
by  virtue  of  any  natural  power  he  had,  but  solely  by 
virtue  of  the  power  imparted  to  him  by  the  call  of  Christ. 
So  when  God  calls  sinners  to  repentance  and  faith.  He 
does  not  leave  them  just  as  they  were,  wrapped  in  the 
unconscious  sleep  of  spiritual  death.  Is  this  mere 
speculation?  It  is  the  gospel.  Hear  Paul's  way  of 
proclaiming  the  gracious  Call :  "Awake,  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  shine 
upon  thee"  (Eph.  5:14).  Whatever  the  calls  and  invi- 
tations of  God  do  or  do  not  effect,  they  surely  do  not 
leave  the  "dead"  sinner  just  as  he  was  before,  else  they 
would  be  both  idle  and  absurd.  Some  kind  of  movement 
is  always  effected  by  God's  Word  and  Spirit.     Let  no 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  49 

one  accuse  us  of  saying  that  this  movement  is  a  natural 
movement,  that  is,  a  movement  of  the  natural  man ;  no, 
it  is  effected  solely  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  therefore  sola 
gratia  is  preserved,  and  all  Synergism  and  human  merit 
are  excluded.  The  Call  may  have  to  be  repeated  many 
times  before  the  dead  sinner  is  fully  aroused  to  his  con- 
dition and  need ;  indeed,  on  account  of  his  perversity,  he 
may  resist  it  for  a  time ;  yes,  even  throughout  his  whole 
life,  and  thus  be  finally  lost ;  and  that,  as  we  shall  show 
presently,  entirely  through  his  own  fault.  Here  our  illus- 
tration about  the  raising  of  Lazarus  would  be  defective, 
because  in  his  case  the  whole  process  was  instantaneous, 
whereas  what  is  known  in  the  purely  spiritual  realm  as 
"prevenient  grace"  operates  gradually. 

But  now  we  must  consider  another  office  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  order  of  salvation.  Simultaneously  with 
the  Call,  or  straightway  following  it,  no  matter  which, 
there  goes  another  most  gracious  work  of  God — Illumi- 
nation. Thanks  be  to  God  for  this  wonderful  function 
of  His  grace!  The  Call  of  God  always  carries  light 
with  it :  "The  entrance  of  thy  words  giveth  light ;"  "I 
am  the  light  of  the  world;"  "This  is  the  condemnation, 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  darkness 
rather  than  light ;"  "Whereby  the  Dayspring  from  on 
high  shall  visit  us,  to  shine  upon  them  that  sit  in  dark- 
ness and  the  shadozv  of  death;  to  guide  our  feet  in  the 
way  of  peace;"  "To  open  their  eyes  that  they  may  turn 
from  darkness  to  light;"  "God  hath  shined  into  our 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ." 

The  Illumination  comes  by  God's  grace  in  two  ways : 
First,  by  the  law ;  second,  by  the  gospel :    "Through  the 


50  Election  and  Conversion 

law  cometh  the  knowledge  of  sin"  (Rom.  3:20)  ;  through 
the  gospel  comes  the  knowledge  of  salvation  from  sin: 
"Christ  hath  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through 
the  gospel"  (2  Tim.  1:10). 

Again  we  ask  whether  the  "dead"  sinner  is  left  in 
precisely  the  same  condition  after  the  Call  and  Illumi- 
nation as  he  was  before f  Surely  not,  else  all  these 
gracious  movements  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would  be  idle 
and  vain.  He  must  now  have  some  knowledge  of  his 
lost  and  ruined  condition;  also  some  knowledge  of  the 
way  of  salvation  through  Christ;  therefore  some  sense 
of  guilt,  of  responsibility,  of  freedom,  of  power  to  relate 
himself  to  God's  proffer  of  salvation.  And  is  not  "pre- 
venient  grace"  grace  just  as  well  as  converting  grace  ?  Is  it 
not  just  as  pure,  simple,  powerful  and  precious?  Dr. 
Jacobs  very  properly  devotes  two  long  chapters  to 
Vocation  and  Illumination  in  his  excellent  work,  "A 
Summary  of  the  Christian  Faith."  He  attributes  both 
to  the  pure  grace  and  mercy  of  God,  just  as  he  does 
Justification,  Regeneration  and  Conversion.* 


*An  enigma  to  us  has  been  how  Dr.  Pieper  could  entirely 
ignore  such  a  masterly  presentation  as  that  of  Dr.  Jacobs  in 
the  work  already  adverted  to,  "A  Summary  of  Christian  Faith." 
Dr.  Jacobs'  book  bears  copyright  date,  1905,  while  Dr.  Pieper 
wrote  in  1913;  yet  Dr.  Pieper  writes  as  if  Dr.  Jacobs  had  never 
written  a  line  on  the  subject  of  the  divine  purpose.  Had  he 
read  and  studied  his  compeer  in  theology,  we  doubt  whether 
he  would  have  written  with  so  much  assurance.  Here  is  another 
puzzle:  How  could  he  charge  the  advocates  of  intuitu  fidei 
with  Synergism,  Pelagianism,  work-righteousness  and  human 
merit,  in  view  of  Dr.  Jacobs'  most  complete  and  almost  classical 
chapter,  in  which  he  repudiates  all  these  errors,  and  advocates 
salvation  solely  on  account  of  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ?  All 
who  want  to  read  both  sides  of  the  question  are  referred  to 
Dr.  Jacobs'  work.  It  is  no  less  a  puzzle  to  us  that  Dr.  Pieper 
could  repeat  his  charge  of  Synergism  and  Pelagianism  against 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  51 

Even  Dr.  Pieper  gives  a  somewhat  lengthy  chapter 
to  the  "preparation  for  conversion,"  the  "acts  prepara- 
tory" {actus  praeparatorii)  ;  but  he  is  so  wrapped  up  in 
his  peculiar  view  of  election  and  conversion  that  he 
treats  these  functions  of  the  Spirit  grudgingly,  lamely, 
as  if  they  were  practically  ineffective,  almost  negligible 
factors  in  the  process  of  conversion.  He  and  others 
even  compare  the  mot  us  effected  by  preparatory  grace 
on  the  sinner's  soul  to  the  indentations  made  on  a 
rubber  ball  by  some  external  impact :  the  indentations 
made,  the  rubber  immediately  springs  back  to  its  original 
form.  Is  not  that  a  mechanical  and  materialistic  way  of 
looking  upon  the  acts  and  effects  of  the  Holy  Ghost? 
What  is  the  use  of  preparatory  acts  at  all,  then,  if  they 
create  no  feeling  of  responsibility,  and  effect  no  ability 
whatever  for  the  sinner  to  relate  himself  to  the  gracious 
overtures  of  salvation?  That  view  makes  conversion 
a  purely  mechanical  thing;  it  makes  God  force  salvation 
on  some  people,  while  it  leaves  others  to  their  awful 
fate.  The  Bible  never  represents  salvation  that  way, 
never !  See  how  well-balanced  and  all-sided  Paul  is : 
"The  wages  of  sin  is  is  death ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is 
eternal    life."      And    a    "gift"    must    be    accepted,    and 


his  opponents,  in  view  of  the  hundreds  of  denials  and  dis- 
claimers made  by  them  in  Tressel's  great  work,  "The  Error  of 
Missouri,"  containing  the  arguments  of  Drs.  Stellhorn  and 
Schmidt  and  Revs.  Allwardt  and  Ernst.  These  theologians, 
while  they  uphold  the  doctrine  of  intuitu  fidei,  also  uphold  sola 
gratia  just  as  stoutly  and  uncompromisingly  as  does  Dr.  Pieper 
himself.  To  our  mind,  they  have  performed  their  task  with 
invincible  logic  and  on  a  sound  Biblical  and  confessional  basis. 
Of  course,  this  commendation  does  not  mean  to  include  an 
endorsement  of  the  drastic  expressions  they  sometimes  used 
in  the  heat  of  controversy.  But  these  can  easily  be  separated 
from  the  masterly  arguments  of  these  brethren. 


52  Election  and  Conversion 

accepted  freely,  or  it  is  not  a  gift.  Something  that  is 
forced  upon  you  is  not  a  gift.  We  must,  therefore, 
differ  from  Missouri's  position,  because  its  teachings 
sHght  and  minify  God's  gracious  work  in  the  prepara- 
tory movements  leading  to  conversion. 

In  conformity  with  the  Bible,  we  have  excellent 
Lutheran  authority  for  this  view.  We  quote  an  admir- 
able paragraph  from  Dr.  Jacobs'  work,  ut  supra,  page 
229: 

"How  is  it  (Regeneration)  related  to  Illumination? 
By  illumination  man  is  brought  to  see  his  lost  condition 
and  to  learn  of  the  provision  made  in  Christ  for  his 
salvation.  This  act,  as  it  progresses,  includes  a  certain 
disposition  of  the  will  toward  the  offered  grace.  Regen- 
eration occurs  when  the  act  of  self-surrender  to  God's 
will  and  promise  is  accomplished  by  the  inner  workings 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Word  or  Sacrament.  Illumination 
influences  the  will,  but  it  belongs  to  regeneration  to  de- 
termine the  decision." 

Admirable,  for  it  honors  God's  grace  and  power 
in  the  prevenient  operations  of  His  Spirit,  and  makes 
room  for  some  real  effect  upon  the  will  of  the  unsaved 
sinner.  It  also  makes  conversion  an  ethical  and  spiritual 
movement,  not  a  mechanical  and  coerced  one. 

Even  Dr.  A.  L.  Graebner,  in  his  "Outlines  of  Doc- 
trinal Theology"  (a  work  that  we  esteem  very  highly, 
and  use  for  reference  in  the  class-room),  was  almost 
forced  to  veer  over  to  this  view  (stalwart  Missourian 
though  he  was),  when  he  came  to  the  locus,  "Conversion 
and  Preparatory  Operations":  ''Regeneration,  or  Con- 
version in  the  stricter  sense,  being  essentially  the  pro- 
creation of  the  true  and  saving  faith,  is  an  instantaneous 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  53 

act  or  process,  but  is  in  adults  preceded  by  preparatory 
operations,  whereby  the  sinner  is  convicted  of  his  sinful 
state  and  helpless  condition  under  divine  wrath  by  means 
of  the  Law,  and  led  to  a  logical  or  historical  under- 
standing of  the  contents  of  the  Gospel,  and  which,  with 
the  outer  use  of  the  means  of  grace,  in  a  measure,  lie 
within  the  power  and  reach  of  the  irregenerate  man." 

Altogether  admirable,  and  true  as  well;  but  it  is 
not  in  accord  with  Missouri's  position;  for  if  "the  con- 
tents of  the  Gospel,"  "in  a  measure  lie  within  the  power 
and  reach  of  the  irregenerate  man,"  then  preparatory 
grace  must  have  done  something  in  that  unregenerate 
man's  will,  so  that  he  has  the  "power"  in  some  way  to 
let  himself  be  disposed  to  the  offer  of  salvation.  If  he 
has  a  certain  "power  and  reach"  in  spiritual  matters,  he 
is  not  in  quite  the  helpless  condition  he  was  before  the 
Call  and  Illumination  came,  for  then  he  was  wholly 
"dead ;"  now  he  has  a  kind  of  "power  and  reach." 
Therefore  he  is  responsible  for  the  proper  use  of  the 
"power  and  reach"  that  God's  Spirit  has  conferred  upon 
him.  If  he  uses  that  conferred  "power  and  reach"  ac- 
cording to  God's  will  and  pre-ordained  plan,  he  will  be 
saved;  if  he  refuses,  he  will  be  lost.  Why  must  we  go 
back,  then,  to  God's  eternal  election  to  find  a  mystery  as 
to  why  some  men  are  saved  and  others  lost,  when  we 
have  the  reason  given  right  here  before  our  eyes,  proved 
by  a  Missouri  Lutheran  himself,  and  that  by  numerous 
quotations  from  the  Bible?  Why  make  a  mystery  of  it 
when  the  Bible  tells  us  just  why  the  elect  are  justified 
and  the  others  condemned  ? 

While  we  are  dealing  with  this  interesting  subject, 
we  wish  to  show  how  a  Concordia  theologian  of  blessed 


54  Election  and  Conversion 

memory  involved  himself  in  contradiction,  just  because, 
instead  of  taking  justification  by  faith  as  the  determin- 
ing principle,  he  looked  at  every  thing  through  the  eye- 
glass of  election.  On  page  172  of  his  "Doctrinal 
Theology"  Dr.  Graebner  defines  Vocation.  See  how 
admirable  his  statement  is :  "Vocation  is  the  act  of  God 
by  which  He,  through  the  means  of  grace,  earnestly 
offers  to  all  who  hear  or  read  the  Gospel,  or  to  whom  the 
sacraments  are  administered,  the  benefits  of  Christ's  re- 
demption, truly  and  earnestly  invites  and  exhorts  them 
to  accept  and  enjoy  what  is  thus  offered,  and  endeavors 
to  move  and  lead  them  by  the  power  inherent  in  the 
means  of  grace  to  such  acceptance  and  enjoyment  of 
the  benefits  of  the  redemption." 

Could  anything  be  more  clearly  stated  ?  Here  is  the 
total  rejection  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  divine  elec- 
tion to  pretention  and  reprobation,  and  of  the  "will  of 
the  sign"  over  against  the  "will  of  the  purpose."  But  now 
let  us  turn  over  to  page  175,  where  our  author  defines  the 
"effects  of  the  call" :  "By  the  divine  power  residing  in 
the  means  of  grace,  and  working  through  the  same,  the 
calling  grace  of  God  effects  regeneration  or  conversion. 
Where  these  effects  are  not  attained,  this  is  due  to  obsti- 
nate resistance  on  the  part  of  man." 

Note  the  contradiction :  In  the  first  paragraph 
quoted,  the  Call  is  simply  the  earnest  "offer"  of  salva- 
tion ;  in  the  second  paragraph  it  actually  "effects  regen- 
eration or  conversion."  That  must  be  a  curious  act  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  that  both  offers  a  boon  and  forcibly 
bestows  it.  An  offer  is  something  to  be  accepted  or 
rejected;  when  you  accept  it,  you  have  it;  if  you  reject 
it,  you  cannot  have  it.     H,  on  the  one  hand,  we  cannot 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  55 

accept  the  offer  (referring  to  the  saved),  and,  on  the 
other,  we  cannot  help  but  reject  it  (the  lost),  then  how 
could  the  offer  have  been  made  sincerely  and  earnestly? 
Moreover,  if  man  has  no  freedom  whatever  to  accept 
the  offered  grace,  then,  if  it  does  come  to  him,  it  must 
have  been  forced  upon  him,  nolens  I'olens;  which  is  con- 
trary to  all  Scriptural  representation  and  all  experience 
in  conversion. 

True,  our  Missouri  brethren  will  reply :  "We  have 
said  again  and  again  that  this  is  the  mystery  of  election ; 
we  do  not  try  to  solve  it;  we  leave  it  with  the  eternal 
counsels  of  the  Almighty  to  be  revealed  in  the  next  life." 
But  why  should  we,  in  our  theologizing,  make  the  Bible 
a  book  of  contradictions  and  inconsistencies  by  a  method 
of  setting  proof-text  over  against  proof-text?  Why  not 
study  it  more  deeply,  and  see  whether  we  cannot  co- 
ordinate its  teachings  and  find  their  inner  harmony? 
Surely  if  God  is  the  altogether  excellent  One,  He  must 
be  harmonious  in  His  own  being,  and  when  He  gives 
His  children  a  revelation,  it  surely  cannot  be  so  full  of 
contradictions  as  to  turn  them  into  infidels.  We  believe 
in  "the  divine  unity  of  the  Scriptures."  By  collating 
Scripture  with  Scripture,  we  can,  more  and  more,  find 
the  beautiful  and  higher  harmony  of  its  teachings.  We 
like  Dr.  Jacobs'  view-point  here  (page  9,  ut  supra);  he 
defines  the  proper  hermeneutical  principle  as  being  an 
observance  of  "the  organic  relation  of  the  various  parts 
of  Holy  Scripture  to  one  another."  True,  we  confess 
to  some  doubt  about  what  is  known  as  the  doctrine  of 
"the  analogy  of  faith,"  for  it  seems  to  set  up  a  human 
standard  of  interpretation  outside  of  the  Bible,  while 
we  believe  in  taking  the  Bible  teaching  just  as  it  stands. 


56  Election  and  Conversion 

But  then  every  text  ought  to  be  interpreted  in  its  true 
contextual  setting  and  according  to  the  meaning  of  the 
writer,  with  due  attention  to  the  correct  exegesis.  Mere 
phrases  and  brief  sentences  should  not  be  treated  in  an 
insolated  way,  nor  wrenched  from  their  context,  nor 
interpreted  merely  according  to  the  sound  of  the  words, 
when  the  real  sense  may  be  something  quite  different. 
You  cannot  truly  and  fairly  interpret  any  writing  in 
that  way — that  is,  by  simply  quoting  a  detached  sentence 
here  and  there;  for  sometimes  a  preceding  or  succeed- 
ing statement  of  the  author  may  qualify  the  quoted 
statement.  Take,  for  instance,  1  Cor.  2:9.  Suppose  a 
dogmatician  should  try  to  formulate  from  that  passage 
the  doctrine  that  the  glories  of  heaven  are  far  beyond 
human  conception  and  imagination,  because  Paul  says: 
"Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,"  etc.  The  true  inter- 
preter of  Scripture  would  simply  tell  him  to  read  the 
next  verse,  when  he  would  see  that  Paul  was  not  re- 
ferring to  heaven  at  all,  but  to  the  revelations  Christians 
now  have  through  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  shall  have 
occasion  more  than  once,  in  succeeding  chapters,  to  show 
how  our  Concordia  brethren  miss  the  mark  in  drawing 
their  peculiar  doctrines  from  the  Scriptures  by  a  too 
infinitesimal  treatment  of  the  Bible. 

Again,  if  there  are  certain  passages  of  Scripture 
that  are  difficult  and  seemingly  obscure,  we  ought  not 
to  seize  upon  them  as  the  norm  of  doctrine,  and  try  to 
regulate  and  gauge  everything  by  them,  but  should  take 
the  plain  and  clear  passages  as  our  guide  to  lead  us 
into  the  others,  which  may  by  and  by,  through  prayer, 
study  and  the  leading  of  the  Spirit,  also  become  explicit. 
And  if  there  are  apparent  contradictions,  we  ought  not 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  57 

to  stop  praying  and  studying,  and  decide  hastily  that 
the  contradictions  are  in  the  Bible.  We  would  better  go 
on  the  principle  that,  as  God  is  a  unity  in  Himself,  and 
there  can  be  no  inconsistencies  in  His  being  and  char- 
acter, so  His  revelation  must  be  consistent  with  itself. 
Would  it  not  be  irreverent  to  think  or  say  that  one  part 
of  Scripture  contradicts  another?  or  that  God  has  said 
one  thing  in  one  place  and  a  different  thing  in  another? 
To  our  mind,  it  would  be  more  humble  and  reverent  to 
think  that  God  would  not  contradict  Himself,  and  that, 
therefore,  if  we  are  patient  and  prayerful,  we  will  pres- 
ently discover  the  sacred  harmony  that  pervades  His 
entire  revelation.  A  good  rule  is  to  compare  Scripture 
with  Scripture.  Perhaps  that  is  what  Paul  means  when 
he  says,  "comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual,"  for 
the  Bible  is  a  spiritual  book. 

H  we  wished  to  be  so  unkind,  we  might  drive  the 
Missouri  advocates  into  a  logical  cul-de-sac  by  their  own 
piecemeal  method  of  handling  the  Scriptures.  They 
stoutly  disclaim  teaching  and  holding  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  eternal  election  to  reprobation ;  sinners  are 
not  elected  to  be  condemned,  but  are  condemned  solely 
on  account  of  their  own  fault.  Now  read  1  Pet.  2 :8 : 
"A  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offense;  for  they 
stumble  at  the  Word,  being  disobedient;  whereunto  also 
they  zvere  appointed."  Take  that  passage  by  itself,  as 
the  Missourians  take  the  election  passages,  and  it 
teaches  the  baldest  Calvinistic  doctrine — namely,  that 
God  "appointed"  the  "disobedient"  to  "stumble  at  the 
Word,"  and  even  to  be  "disobedient."  And,  according 
to  the  Missouri  view,  you  would  not  dare  to  "interpret" 
this  passage,  nor  explain  it  by  any  other.     And  so  here 


58  Election  and  Conversion 

would  be  another  insoluble  mystery — namely,  that,  in  one 
place,  the  Bible  teaches  that  sinners  are  condemned  on 
account  of  their  own  fault,  and,  in  another,  that  they 
are  "appointed"  to  stumble  into  condemnation.  How 
many  mysteries  you  could  create  in  that  way !  But 
take  the  better  way  of  interpreting  Scripture,  and  all  is 
clear.  By  reading  the  context,  especially  verses  6  and  7, 
you  will  see  who  the  people  are  that  stumble  at  Christ 
and  his  Word — those  who  "disbelieve."  And,  of  course, 
people  who  reject  Christ  are  "appointed"  to  stumble  over 
many  things  in  God's  Word.  We  have  seen  them  stumble 
over  the  most  simple  and  precious  doctrines.  Such  is 
God's  inevitable  law — -that  spiritual  blindness  comes  upon 
people  who  reject  His  Word  and  His  offer  of  salvation. 
After  writing  the  foregoing,  we  read  over  again  Dr. 
J.  L.  Neve's  graphic  report  of  the  Missouri-Ohio-Iowa 
free  conferences  at  Milwaukee  and  Detroit  in  1903-4.  It 
would  appear  that  they  spent  a  large  part  of  their  time 
in  wrestling  over  methods  of  Biblical  interpretation. 
Missouri  was  against  the  doctrine  of  the  "Analogy  of 
Faith;"  the  others  for  it.  We  have  no  time  to  amplify 
on  this  matter  now.  For  our  part,  we  do  not  hold  up 
any  objective  rule  by  which  to  interpret  Scripture,  nor 
do  we  feel  obliged  to  "harmonize"  the  various  parts  of 
the  Bible ;  we  believe  they  do  not  need  to  be  harmonized ; 
they  need  simply  to  be  understood,  and  then  they  will  be 
seen  to  be  harmonious.  If  God  is  a  unity,  His  revelation 
will  be  like  Himself.  Therefore  our  simple  hermeneutical 
rule  is  to  take  each  passage  according  to  its  natural  and 
literal  meaning  in  connection  with  the  context,  always 
reading  enough  to  be  sure  of  the  author's  main  proposi- 
tion.    By  applying  this  simple  rule — it  is  the  rule  of  all 


The  Heart  of  the  Question  59 

true  literary  exposition — we  do  not  find  one  passage  of 
Scripture  teaching  one  thing,  and  another  something  else. 
Of  course,  no  brief  Scripture  verse  teaches  all  the  doc- 
trines of  redemption.  John  3:16,  though  called  the 
"gospel  in  mice,"  says  nothing  about  vicarious  atonement 
or  the  resurrection.  You  must  go  to  other  parts  of  the 
Bible  to  find  those  doctrines.  But  all  portions  of  the 
Scripture  are  complementary.  One  of  the  strongest 
evidences  of  the  divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the 
Bible  is  its  organic  unity. 

According  to  the  Bible,  the  way  of  salvation  is  so 
plain  that  "the  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not 
err  therein."  It  is  not  likely,  therefore,  that  God,  in  re- 
vealing that  way  in  His  Word,  would  set  it  forth  in  a 
self-contradictory  manner.  Let  us  give  a  few  examples  of 
how  text  may  be  set  up  against  text  by  the  piecemeal 
method.  In  John  14:27  Christ  said:  "Peace  I  leave 
with  you ;  my  peace  I  give  unto  you."  The  angels  over 
Bethlehem's  plains  sang  (Matt.  2:14):  "Glory  to  God 
in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good  will  to  men" 
(old  version).  But  in  Matt.  10:34  Christ  said  the 
opposite:  "Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on 
earth :  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword."  The 
Concordia  Lutherans  do  not  throw  up  their  hands  and 
say:  "Here  is  a  plain  contradiction,  and  therefore  an  in- 
explicable mystery,  which  we  must  simply  accept,  but 
must  not  try  to  harmonize."  No ;  they  know  that  the  in- 
terpretation is  very  simple — that  to  the  sinner  in  his  sins 
the  Word  of  God  is  a  sword,  while  to  the  true  believer  it 
imparts  peace.  Take  another  instance.  John  16:7: 
"Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth :  it  is  expedient  for 
you  that  I  go  away;  for  if  I  go  not  away  the  Comforter 


60  Election  and  Conversion 

will  not  come."  Set  over  against  it  Matt.  28 :20 :  "And 
lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  Do  the  Missouri  expositors  say  this  is  another 
contradiction,  an  insoluble  mystery?  No;  they  simply 
interpret  the  two  passages  in  the  larger  light  of  the 
ascension,  glorification,  transcendence  and  consequent 
immanence  of  Christ's  human  nature — that  is,  by  means 
of  the  glorious  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  commimicatio 
idiomatum,  just  as  the  Formula  of  Concord  does  in 
Chapter  VIII  of  the  Epitome  and  Solid  Declaration. 

Thus  we  must  compare  Scripture  with  Scripture  in 
the  investigation  of  other  doctrines  in  order  to  get  the 
whole  truth.  The  same  interpretative  rule  should  hold 
with  reference  to  election  and  conversion. 


VI 
REGENERATION   WORKING  FAITH 

HAVING  seen  that  Vocation  and  Illumination,  being 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  whereby  He  produces 
awakening,  enlightenment,  knowledge  of  sin  and  the  way 
of  salvation,  and  also  effects  a  certain  enablement  of 
the  will,  thus  making  the  sinner  a  responsible  agent  re- 
specting his  personal  salvation,  we  shall  next  treat  of 
regeneration  and  faith  and  their  relations  to  each  other. 
For  we  have  not  yet  arrived  at  these  movements  in  our 
analysis  of  the  Order  of  Grace.  No;  the  called  and 
awakened  sinner  cannot  yet  believe.  He  simply  has  a 
knowledge  of  sin  and  of  the  way  of  salvation  through 
Christ.  He  says:  "I  cannot  believe;  the  more  I  try 
the  more  I  fail."  More  than  once  he  adds  Paul's  plain- 
tive cry :  "O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver 
me  from  the  body  of  this  death?"  Yes;  he  realizes  that 
his  ethical  corruption  and  spiritual  disability  are  still 
lying  like  a  corpse  in  his  soul.  So  far  as  self-help  is 
concerned,  he  feels  more  keenly  than  ever  that  he  is  "dead 
in  sin."  What  can  he  do?  The  electionist  says,  "Nothing, 
absolutely  nothing !"  Then  what  was  the  use  of  the  Voca- 
tion and  Illumination?  But  he  can  do  something,  for  God 
by  His  prevenient  grace  has  given  him  the  ability:  he 
can  pray ;  very  lamely  and  haltingly,  it  is  true ;  still,  with 
all  his  doubt  and  despair,  he  can  pray.  That  is  what 
Paul  did  on  his  way  to  Damascus:  "Lord,  what  wilt 
thou  have  me  to  do?"  and  after  he  reached  Damascus: 


62  Election  and  Conversion 

"Behold,  he  prayeth."  That  is  what  the  sin-stricken 
Publican  did :  "God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner."  That 
is  what  Peter  did,  when  sinking  in  the  waves:  "Lord, 
save  me  or  I  perish."  So  the  pentitent  thief :  "Lord, 
remember  me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom."  Our 
Lord  said :  "Men  ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint." 
In  Dr.  Pieper's  book  of  151  pages,  discussing  con- 
version and  election  with  great  labor  and  learning,  there 
is  not  a  word  said  about  the  sinner  praying  for  mercy 
and  pardon.  Perhaps  the  election  advocates  think  that 
the  unconverted  sinner  cannot  pray.  If  so,  that  is  merely 
an  academic  theory ;  it  contradicts  the  experience  of 
millions  of  Christians,  who  prayed  before  they  were  con- 
verted and  for  conversion,  even  though  they  could  only 
say  with  one  of  old :  "Lord,  I  believe ;  help  thou  mine 
unbelief."  Indeed,  we  have  wondered  much  why  the 
Concordia  dogmaticians  give  no  place  to  prayer  in  the 
acts  preparatory  to  conversion.  The  Bible  so  often 
represents  the  unregenerate  as  praying  for  pardon  and 
salvation.  (See  the  instances  cited  above.)  Might  this 
slighting  of  prayer  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  dogma- 
ticians have  had  little  experience  in  winning  adult  sin- 
ners to  Christ?  The  writer  of  this  book  was  a  pastor 
for  many  years,  and  has  had  much  experience  in  direct- 
ing adult  sinners  of  all  kinds  and  classes  in  the  way  of 
salvation.  He  has  never  known  an  adult  conversion  to 
occur  without  prayer.  More  than  one  despondent  in- 
quirer has  said,  "I  can't  believe!"  We  have  replied: 
"I  know  you  cannot  in  your  own  strength;  but  you  can 
pray  for  faith ;  and  God  will  remove  your  doubt  and 
give  you  the  power  to  believe."  In  every  case,  so  far 
as  we  can  remember,  faith  was  bestowed  in  God's  good 


Regetieration  Working  Faith  63 

time.  If  Jacob  wrestled  all  night  with  the  angel  for  a 
blessing,  should  not  the  awakened  sinner  also  pray 
for  salvation?  Indeed,  this  is  one  of  God's  great  pur- 
poses in  the  preparatory  acts— namely,  to  bring  the 
sinner  to  his  knees  in  humble  confession  and  supplica- 
tion. (It  should  be  remembered  that  we  are  here  speak- 
ing only  of  the  conversion  or  regeneration  of  adults, 
not  of  regeneration  in  child  baptism.) 

Now,  if  the  sinner  will  pray  to  God  for  help,  God 
will,  through  added  prevenient  grace,  enable  him  freely 
to  cease  his  resistance,  freely  to  surrender  himself  to 
God  alone ;  yes,  even  to  cease  trying  to  save  himself,  and 
simply  let  God,  and  God  alone,  save  him. 

Having  led  him  thus  far,  so  that  he  utterly  despairs 
of  self-help,  and  gives  himself  up  entirely  to  God,  God 
flies  to  his  rescue,  breathes  into  his  soul  the  new 
spiritual  life,  which  is  regeneration,  in  and  by  which  the 
ability  of  faith  is  conferred  upon  him;  then,  by  this 
divinely  enabled  faith,  he  lays  hold  upon  Christ  as  His 
Saviour  and  Redeemer ;  and  this  exercise  of  faith,  a 
power  given  purely  by  grace,  brings  justification  and 
all  the  salutary  blessings  which  accrue  therefrom.  Re- 
generation or  conversion  also  effects  the  mystical 
union  (imio  mystica)  between  the  sinner  and  Christ, 
and  thus  sets  him  on  the  way  of  progressive  sanctification. 
The  whole  process  is  vital,  ethical  and  spiritual ;  at  no 
point  merely  mechanical ;  at  no  moment  is  the  sinner 
coerced.  In  reviewing  his  experience,  he  knows  that  all 
the  way  he  was  drawn,  not  by  force,  but  by  the  cords 
of  love.  The  whole  transaction  was  the  work  of  God's 
grace.  What  freedom  he  had  and  used  was  not  active  and 
co-operating,  but  only  consenting  freedom ;  and  even  the 
ability  to  consent  was  bestowed  by  prevenient  grace. 


64  Election  and  Conversion 

But  how  about  those  who  are  not  saved  ?  With  our 
Missouri  brethren,  we  say  that  they  are  lost  solely  be- 
cause they  stubbornly  resisted  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
rejected  the  overtures  of  mercy.  But  we  go  this  much 
further  than  Missouri ;  we  add,  they  had  their  chance, 
line  upon  line,  but  they  did  not  improve  it.  Through 
God's  call  and  gracious  invitation  and  oft-repeated 
proffer  of  salvation,  they  knew  well  enough  that  God 
would  gladly  give  them  faith,  conversion  and  salvation 
if  they  would  let  Him;  but  they  would  not  allow  Him 
to  save  them.  They  were  able  to  reject  God  by  their 
own  sinful  choice;  but  God  also  told  them  through  the 
gospel  that  He  would  make  them  free  from  the  bondage 
of  sin,  if  they  would  surrender  to  Him.  Can  any  one 
living  in  a  gospel  land  deny  this?  Just  hear  Christ's 
words :  "The  Son  of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  was  lost;"  "If  the  Son  shall  make  you  free, 
ye  shall  be  free  indeed ;"  "He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim 
deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovery  of  sight  to  the 
blind,  and  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to 
proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord."  Why,  that 
is  precisely  why  Christ  came:  "Thou  shalt  call  His 
name  Jesus,  for  He  shall  save  His  people  from  their 
sins."  So  all  may  be  enabled  if  they  will.  If  some 
choose  the  bondage  of  sin,  when  deliverance  is  so  freely 
and  urgently  offered,  with  ability  to  accept  the  offer, 
we  know  not  what  God  could  do  for  them  and  with  them 
but  leave  them  to  their  own  devices.  If  others,  recog- 
nizing through  the  gospel  call  their  lost  condition  and 
utter  inability,  are  willing  to  let  Christ  emancipate  them, 
they  will  be  saved.  God  desires  to  enable  all  to  accept 
deliverance,  but  He  can  save  only  those  who,  after  He 


Regeneration  IV  or  king  Faith  65 

has  aroused  them  by  His  call  and  pointed  them  to  the 
Saviour,  are  willing  to  let  Him  rescue  and  enable  them. 
To  our  mind,  this  is  the  gracious  order  of  the  Spirit's 
application  of  redemption  (which  has  already  been 
wrought  out  by  Christ's  active  and  passive  obedience)  : 
Prevenient  grace  gives  all  a  chance,  and  therefore  locates 
the  responsibility;  regenerating  grace  bestows  the  new 
life  and  enables  saving  faith;  faith  accepts  justification, 
by  which  all  Christ's  merits  are  imputed  to  the  believer, 
which  is  the  sole  ground  of  his  salvation ;  progressive 
sanctilication  develops  and  unfolds  the  inherent  right- 
eousness enabled  by  regeneration  or  conversion.  It  is  all 
of  grace — sola  gratia.  The  work  of  sanctification,  even, 
where  Missouri  and  all  the  rest  of  us  say  that  the  believ- 
er's emancipated  will  co-operates  with  God's  will,  is  all  of 
grace,  just  as  the  work  of  prevenient  enduement  is  all 
of  grace.  There  is  not  one  particle  of  human  merit  in 
the  whole  process  from  Vocation  to  Glory.  Even  the 
saints  in  heaven  do  not  praise  themselves  or  boast  of 
any  merit,  but  give  all  the  glory  to  "Him  that  sitteth 
upon  the  throne  and  to  the  Lamb  forever  and  ever" 
(Rev.  5:13). 

We  are  wondering  now  whether  any  of  our  brethren 
will  try  to  find  some  "cryptic  synergism"  here,  because 
we  assign  some  degree  of  enabling  power  to  grace  prior 
to  conversion.  H  so,  we  shall  have  to  deny  the  allegation. 
What  we  understand  by  Synergism  is  this,  that  man  by 
his  natural  powers  is  able  to  concur  with  God's  grace. 
This  idea  we  repudiate  with  all  our  might.  So  far  as 
regards  spiritual  energies,  true  righteousness  toward  God, 
and  ability  to  believe  on  a  spiritual  Redeemer,  the  un- 
saved sinner  is  "dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."     How  can 


66  Election  and  Conversion 

a  dead  man  do  anything?  How  can  a  man  who  is 
spiritually  dead  do  anything  spiritual?  Even  if  the 
Bible  did  not  teach  it  plainly,  it  would  still  be  psychically 
impossible  for  an  unspiritual  mind  to  perform  spiritual 
functions.  Moreover,  a  soul  that  is  in  the  bondage  of 
sin  and  corruption  cannot  act  as  if  it  were  free.  The 
fact  is,  if  man  could,  by  his  natural  ability,  do  anything 
truly  and  spiritually  good  without  Christ,  he  might  do 
everything  that  is  spiritually  good  without  Him,  for  then 
he  might  simply  develop  the  spiritual  powers  within  him. 
No,  so  far  as  doing  anything  spiritual  and  truly  righteous 
before  God  is  concerned,  man,  in  his  state  of  natural 
depravity,  is  utterly  unable.  And,  mark  you,  no  man 
is  ever  commanded  to  believe  on  Christ  until  he  is  called 
through  the  gospel,  just  as  Paul  says:  "How  shall  they 
believe  on  Him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard?  And 
how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?  ...  So  faith 
cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  Word  of  Christ." 
Christ's  teaching  is  just  the  same  (John  15:22):  "If 
I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had 
sin,  but  now  they  have  no  excuse  for  their  sin."  Also 
Paul  again  (Rom.  4:15)  :  "For  the  law  worketh  wrath; 
but  where  there  is  no  law,  neither  is  there  transgression." 
It  is  all  very  simple  and  plain  and  reasonable,  if  we  just 
accept  the  clear  Bible  statements.  In  a  state  of  nature, 
therefore,  man  has  no  spiritual  ability ;  but  so  soon  as 
the  gospel  Call  and  Illumination  reach  him,  he  has  been 
touched  by  a  spiritual  power,  and  is  not  quite  the  same 
as  before. 

After  God  has  prepared  redemption  through  Christ, 
after  He  awakens  and  illumines  sinners,  and  after  He 
graciously  offers  them  the  salvation  thus  provided,  then. 


Regeneration  Workint.)  Faith  67 

and  then  only,  is  their  own  choice  decisive ;  but  it  is  de- 
cisive then,  for  at  that  point  their  free  moral  agency 
respecting  the  gracious  overture  comes  into  play.  If 
this  is  not  true,  we  repeat  again  that  the  grace  bestowed 
in  conversion  must  be  "irresistible  grace,"  and  that  is 
Calvinism,  not  Lutheranism.  Moreover,  there  is  not  one 
passage  of  Scripture  that  teaches  that  grace  is  irresistibly 
bestowed.  Indeed,  if  it  were,  it  would  not  be  grace, 
whatever  else  it  might  be  called. 

There  is  still  another  point  in  the  process  of  V^oca- 
tion,  Illumination  and  Conversion  that  requires  elucida- 
tion :  How  is  it  that  the  sinner  can,  on  the  one  hand, 
resist  God's  Spirit,  while,  on  the  other,  he  cannot  do 
anything  to  save  himself?  How  can  he  be  free  if  he 
cannot  act  both  ways,  if  he  has  not  the  power  of  alternate 
choice  ?  Let  us  use  an  illustration.  Suppose  a  man  who 
is  utterly  unable  to  swim  should  fall  into  a  deep  lake. 
He  is  "dead,"  so  far  as  swimming  is  concerned.  At 
once  a  man  in  a  canoe,  near  at  hand,  hurries  to  his  rescue. 
Now,  while  the  man  would  be  utterly  unable  to  save 
himself,  he  still  might  resist  his  would-be  rescuer,  might 
fight  him  away,  might  prefer  to  drown.  The  unhappy 
man  might  do  another  thing ;  he  might  struggle,  and 
fling  his  arms,  and  try  to  save  himself,  and  thus  inter- 
fere with  his  deliverer,  and  make  it  impossible  for  him 
to  save  him.  But  his  benefactor  might  speak  to  him, 
plead  with  him  to  let  himself  be  saved,  instruct  him  not 
to  struggle  or  try  at  all  to  save  himself,  but  simply  to  leave 
himself  quiescent  in  his  hands ;  thus  by  and  by  the  des- 
perate man  might  be  so  soothed  as  to  cease  all  efforts 
of  his  own,  and  surrender  himself  entirely  into  the  hands 
of  his  rescuer.     If  he  did,  he  would  be  saved;  if  he  did 


68  Election  and  Conversion 

not,  he  would  be  lost.    This  is  a  parable,  but  its  meaning 
lies  on  the  surface ;  it  needs  no  interpretation.* 

We  shall  humbly  do  our  best  to  illumine  another 
matter.  Every  Bible  student,  whether  a  theologian  or  not, 
must  realize  that  spiritual  death  is  not  in  all  respects 
like  physical  death.  In  the  spiritual  realm  the  word 
"death"  means  the  most  corrupt  and  undone  condition 
possible  in  that  sphere.  When  a  material  body  is  dead, 
it  is  unconscious,  but  when  a  soul  is  dead  to  spiritual 
realities,  it  is  not  dead  like  that;  it  is  not  unconscious. 
Theologians  usually  distinguish  three  kinds  of  death — 
temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal.  The  sinner  is  in  some 
respects  very  conscious  and  very  much  alive,  though 
dead  in  other  ways.  Those  who  go  down  to  eternal 
death — called  in  Scripture  the  "second  death" — are 
neither  unconscious  nor  quiescent,  but  recognize  their 
doom,  and  suffer  its  pangs.  The  apostle  Paul  indicates 
this  truth  in  the  passage  so  often  quoted  by  all  of  us  who 
believe  in  total  depravity  (Eph.  2:1-3).  We  give  the 
passage  according  to  what  we  think  the  clearest  transla- 
tion: "And  you  were  dead  (neh'ous)  in  (or  as  to) 
your  trespasses  and  sins,  in  which  ye  once  zvalked 
(Greek,  periepatesate,  walked  or  trod  about)  according 
to  the  ways  of  this  world,  according  to  the  prince  of 
the  powers  of  the  air,  of  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in 


♦Another  apt  comparison  might  be  that  of  a  man  in  fetters 
in  the  dungeon  of  a  prison.  When  his  deliverer  comes  to 
announce  pardon  and  release,  the  prisoner  could  not  unlock 
his  prison  door,  or  remove  his  chains,  or  even  do  a  thing  to 
effect  his  own  liberation;  but  he  might  resist,  fight,  refuse  to 
be  forgiven  and  freed.  His  deliverer  might  overcome  his 
obstinacy  by  persuasion,  so  that  by  and  by  he  would  be  will- 
ing to  let  his  benefactor  set  him  free.     So  with  the  sinner. 


Regeneration  Working  Faith  69 

the  sons  of  disobedience ;  among  whom  we  also  once 
lived  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,"  etc.  You  will  observe 
that  those  "dead"  people  "walked  about"  and  "lived," 
even  while  they  were  dead.  So  Paul  says  in  1  Tim.  5:6: 
"But  she  that  giveth  herself  to  pleasure  is  dead  while 
she  liveth." 

Then  what  is  the  meaning  of  "dead  in  sin  ?"  This : 
the  spiritual  powers  of  the  soul  have  become  atrophied, 
paralyzed,  or  deadened  by  sin,  while  the  other  psychical 
powers  retain  their  abililty  to  function,  though  of  course 
all  of  them  are  sadly  affected.  When  man  sinned  in 
the  garden  of  Eden,  he  lost  his  original  righteousness, 
his  spiritual  quality,  his  faith  and  love  in  and  for  God, 
and  became  alienated  from  Him ;  but  we  know  from 
the  Bible  itself  that  he  did  not  lose  his  personality,  his 
mental  powers,  his  self-consciousness,  his  freedom  in 
earthly  affairs,  his  psychical  emotion,  nor  even  his  con- 
science entirely.  Moreover,  he  still  retained  his  sight, 
hearing,  and  other  senses.  All  these  were  permitted  to 
remain  through  the  intervening  mercy  of  God,  for  He 
might  justly  have  permitted  man  to  be  wholly  destroyed. 
Strangely  enough,  Adam,  though  spiritually  dead,  was 
still,  by  virtue  of  his  remaining  psychical  powers,  even 
conscious  that  he  had  sinned,  for  he  was  ashamed,  hid 
from  God,  and  was  afraid  to  meet  Him.  When  God 
called  him,  he  could  hear  the  divine  voice,  could  under- 
stand the  words,  and  could  make  reply.  However,  he 
showed  the  depth  of  the  infamy  into  which  he  had 
fallen — that  is,  his  spiritual  death-stroke — by  refusing 
to  repent  and  plead  for  pardon,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
even  tried  to  justify  himself  by  putting  the  blame  upon 
the  woman ;  while  she,  being  in  the  same  spiritual  con- 


70  Election  and  Conversion 

dition,  tried  to  fix  the  blame  upon  the  serpent.  They 
were  both  dead  and  ahve,  those  two,  and  their  posterity 
has  ever  since  inherited  the  same  abnormal  and  para- 
doxical nature. 

What,  then,  is  this  living  death  of  the  unconverted 
sinner?  It  is  that  deadened  divine  image  that  is  within 
him ;  it  is  those  corrupted  and  paralyzed  spiritual  powers. 
It  is  as  if  he  were  bearing  a  corpse  about  with  him 
in  his  soul.  It  casts  its  terrible  blight  upon  all  his 
psychical  faculties,  the  intellect,  the  susceptibility,  the 
will.  Even  in  his  natural  state  he  must  often  be  con- 
scious of  the  schism  within,  and  of  the  dead  weight  he 
carries  about;  but  he  becomes  poignantly  conscious  of 
his  blight  and  burden  when  the  call  of  God  sounds  in 
his  ears,  and  the  blazing  light  of  the  law  reveals  the 
hideous  obliquity  of  his  being.  It  is  at  this  point  that 
Paul  exclaims  in  his  despair:  "Oh,  wretched  man  that 
1  am !  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death?"  No  sooner  does  the  sinner  utter  this  cry  for 
help  than  God  sheds  upon  him  the  sweet,  mellow  radi- 
ance of  the  gospel,  which  reveals  Christ  to  him  as  the 
only  source  of  help;  and  so  he  again  cries  with  Paul: 
"I  thank  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But  while  the  sinner  has  a  natural  will,  so  that  he 
is  capable  of  a  kind  of  "civil  righteousness"  (Augsburg 
Confession,  Art.  18;  Apology,  page  78),  yet  in  the 
higher,  the  spiritual  matters  it  avails  nothing;  it  is 
utterly  helpless.  As  the  Augsburg  Confession  puts  it 
(Art.  18)  :  "It  has  no  power,  without  the  Holy  Ghost, 
to  work  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  spiritual 
righteousness;  since  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  but  this  righteousness  is 


Regeneration  Working  Faith  71 

wrought  in  the  heart  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  received 
through  the  Word."  The  Formula  of  Concord  (page 
557,  Jacob's  edition)  insists  on  the  same  truth:  "The 
reason  and  free  will  have  the  power,  to  a  certain  extent, 
to  live  an  outwardly  decent  life;  but  to  be  born  anew, 
and  to  obtain  inwardly  another  heart,  sense  and  disposi- 
tion, this  only  the  Holy  Ghost  efifects.  He  opens  the 
understanding  and  heart  to  understand  the  Scriptures, 
and  to  give  heed  to  the  Word,  as  it  is  written  (Luke 
24:25)  :  'Then  opened  He  their  understanding,  that  they 
might  understand  the  Scriptures.'  " 

Therefore,  we  maintain  that,  when  the  will  has 
attained  any  power  or  disposition  toward  spiritual 
things  by  means  of  the  Vocation  and  Illumination,  such 
disposition  or  power  is  in  nowise  resident  in  the  natural 
will,  but  pertains  wholly  and  solely  to  the  spiritual  ability 
that  has  been  imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  natural 
will  is  corrupted  by  inherited  depravity  and  actual  sin, 
and  therefore  can  neither  choose  nor  initiate  anything 
good,  but  is  set  against  it.  All  these  things  must  be 
true,  for  if  man  were  not  a  willful  sinner,  he  would  not 
be  a  real  sinner  at  all ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  he 
could  save  himself,  there  would  be  no  need  of  Christ 
and  His  gospel.  And  yet  again,  if  God  would  convert 
him  after  the  Call  and  Illumination  without  his  consent, 
then  God  would  force  salvation  upon  him,  and  therefore 
it  would  not  be  an  ethical  and  spiritual  salvation,  but  a 
coerced  and  mechanical  one,  which  would  be  no  sal- 
vation at  all,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term.  Therefore, 
from  the  very  nature  of  an  ethical  salvation,  there  must 
be  an  action  of  prevenient  grace  prior  to  conversion, 
which  enables  man  in  some  way  to  exercise  his  will  to 


72  Election  and  Conversion 

the  extent  that  he  is  willing  to  be  converted.  This  agrees 
with  the  Scriptures,  as  we  have  shown  again  and  again, 
and  it  also  agrees  with  our  Christian  experience;  for 
every  converted  man  knows  that,  on  the  one  hand,  he  did 
not  and  could  not  convert  himself,  and,  on  the  other, 
that  God  did  not  convert  him  against  his  will  and  with- 
out his  consent.  "Whosoever  will,  let  him  take  of  the 
water  of  life  freely."  Why  not  see  in  the  Bible  a  beauti- 
ful consistency?  It  is  not  a  book  of  real  or  seeming 
contradictions.  Mysteries  there  are,  and  we  gladly 
admit  it;  but  no  incongruities,  no  absurdities,  nothing 
that  shocks  the  spiritually  enlightened  and  sanctified 
reason. 


VII 
SALIENT   SCRIPTURE  TEACHING 

LET  us  examine  a  few  relevant  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture to  see  how  consistent  and  harmonious,  how 
vitally  organized,  how  divinely  unified,  the  whole  process 
of  conversion  is  represented  to  be.  First,  take  John 
7:17:  "If  any  one  {tis)  willeth  (tlielc,  active,  subjunc- 
tive) to  do  (poiein)  His  will  {thelema,  same  root  as  that 
of  thele),  he  shall  know  concerning  the  teaching,  whether 
it  is  from  God,  or  whether  I  speak  from  myself."  This 
is  a  crucial  passage.  It  would  seem  that  our  Lord  was 
not  so  much  afraid  to  mention  the  human  will  as  some 
theologians  are.  Why?  Because  He  was  practical,  took 
man  as  he  is,  and  knew  that  it  would  detract  nothing 
from  God's  honor  and  grace  for  Him  to  respect  the  will 
which  He  Himself  had  put  into  man's  being  and  endued 
with  its  wonderful  power  of  alternate  choice.  However, 
let  us  proceed  to  the  analysis  of  this  great  passage.  The 
following  is  Dr.  A.  Spaeth's  exposition  (Lutheran  Com- 
mentary, in  loco,  page  101)  :  "And  the  evidence  of  the 
divine  character  and  authority  of  His  teaching  is  to  be 
found  by  all  those  who  honestly  will  to  do  the  Father's 
will,  wherever  that  will  may  be  found,  whether  in  the 
law,  or  in  the  prophets,  or  in  the  conscience  of  man.  The 
moral  character  of  Christianity  is  the  testimony  of  its 
divine  power  and  authority.  It  is  the  Old  Testament 
principle:  'The  fear  of  the  Lord— the  beginning  of 
wisdom,'  which  is  here  by  the  Lord  Himself  applied  to 


74  Election  and  Conversion 

the  New  Testament  revelation  of  the  Gospel.  The  heart, 
the  conscience,  the  will  of  man  are  involved  in  his  search 
after  truth.  Wherever  there  is  an  honest  will,  an  up- 
right, sincere  resolution,  not  the  actual  doing  or  per- 
fection in  doing  the  will  of  God  (which  is  impossible), 
men  will  be  drawn  to  Christ ;  they  will  appreciate  the  gift 
of  God  in  the  Gospel,  having  made  an  honest  effort  to 
do  the  will  of  God  as  they  know  it." 

This  is  quite  admirable  and  true.  Let  us  make  the 
explication  of  the  passage  a  little  more  germain  to  the 
present  discussion,  for  of  course  Dr.  Spaeth  did  not  have 
the  Missouri  view  of  conversion  in  mind.  "If  any  one 
willeth  to  do  His  will."  Christ  was  here  speaking  to 
unconverted  people,  as  the  whole  context  shows.  Yet 
He  said,  "If  any  one  willeth."  Would  He  have  used  such 
language  if  the  people  whom  He  was  addressing  had  no 
volitional  power  whatever  ?  We  do  not  believe  it  is  treat- 
ing Christ  with  due  honor  to  make  Him  guilty  of  acting 
and  speaking  absurdly,  just  because  we  hold  some  par- 
ticularistic theory  of  conversion  and  election.  But  how 
about  the  "wilHng"  of  those  unregenerate  people?  As 
Paul  says,  in  the  natural  state  they  were  "dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins."  Is  not  this  a  glaring  inconsistency? 
Not  at  all,  but  a  beautiful  organism.  Why  had  Christ 
come  into  the  world,  and  why  was  He  speaking  to  those 
people  just  then?  For  the  very  purpose  of  waking  them 
from  their  death-sleep.  "The  words  that  I  speak  unto 
you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life."  His  blessed 
words  were  not  dead  words.  So  He  was  trying  to  stir 
them  into  life  by  His  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  them. 
Did  nothing  stir  within  them?  Did  no  enablement  come 
to  them  while  He  "spake  as  never  man  spake?"    What  a 


Salient  Scripture  Teaching  75 

derogation  of  Christ's  message  that  view  would  be !  No, 
He  was  stirring  their  wills  into  action  by  the  spiritual 
power  that  accompanied  His  gracious  words.  Herein  lies 
the  gracious  power  of  the  Call. 

Now,  note  carefully:  He  does  not  say  or  mean  to 
say  that  sinners  can  do  God's  will,  but  merely  that  they 
shall  will  or  be  willing.  And  what  was  God's  will  just 
at  that  critical  juncture  in  the  Hfe  of  those  Jews? 
According  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Biblical  teaching,  it 
simply  was  this:  that  they  should  be  willing  to  let  God 
save  them  through  Christ.  If  they  had  been  willing  to  do 
just  that  much — to  let  God  even  overcome  the  opposition 
of  their  sinful  hearts  and  wills.  He  would  have  saved 
them,  yes,  saved  them  even  from  themselves ;  and  then 
they  would  have  known  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  of 
God,  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  Then  He  would  have  con- 
verted them;  and  then,  afterward,  as  they  continued  to 
be  willing  to  do  God's  will,  they  would  have  known 
more  and  more  of  His  divine  and  gracious  doctrine. 
"The  path  of  the  just  shineth  more  and  more  unto  the 
perfect  day."  There  is  not  a  gospel  preacher  on  earth 
who,  if  he  were  speaking  to  unsaved  men,  would  not 
say  precisely  the  same  thing  to  them.  He  would  never 
begin  by  telling  them  of  the  divine  decrees  in  eternity. 
He  would  never  preach  to  them  about  their  utter  inability 
and  consequent  irresponsibility.  How  do  our  Missouri 
brethren  preach  to  unconverted  sinners?  As  if  they 
were  logs  and  stones,  or  as  if  they  were  men,  capable  of 
receiving,  through  God's  enabling  grace,  an  ethical 
salvation?  God  never  works  on  man,  a  personality,  in 
a  mechanical  way;  always  in  a  vital  and  ethical  way. 
The  fact  is,  man  even  in  his  sinful  state,  still  has  ears 


76  Election  and  Conversion 

and  eyes  and  self-consciousness,  through  which  God,  by 
the  gospel,  is  able  to  reach  that  dead  spiritual  corpse 
within  him  and  bring  it  back  to  life.  Therefore  Christ 
said :  ''Take  heed  how  ye  hear  and  what  ye  hear."  The 
act  of  imparting  the  new  life,  enabling  faith,  is  regenera- 
tion or  conversion ;  the  process  of  reaching  man  to  make 
him  conscious  of  his  corruption  and  inability  and  to  make 
him  willing  to  be  saved,  is  Vocation  and  Illumination. 
It  is  all  of  grace,  but  it  is  also  ethical  and  spiritual,  not 
material  or  mechanical. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  examine  another  crucial  passage 
of  the  Word— Phil.  2:12,  13:  "So  then,  my  beloved, 
even  as  ye  have  always  obeyed,  not  as  in  my  presence 
only,  but  now  much  more  in  my  absence,  work  out  your 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it  is  God  who 
worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work  for  His  good 
pleasure."  Twentieth  Century  New  Testament,  verse 
13:  "Remember  it  is  God  who,  in  His  kindness,  is  at 
work  within  you,  enabling  you  both  to  will  and  to  work." 
How  beautiful  and  ethical  it  all  is !  True,  these  words 
were  written  to  converted  men,  but  we  quote  them  to 
show  that  the  same  general  principles  apply  to  the  work 
of  sanctification  that  obtain  in  conversion,  proving  again 
that  Biblical  teaching  is  a  consistent  unity. 

If  God  in  sanctification  works  in  us  both  to  will  and 
to  do,  one  would  think  that  the  Missouri  brethren  would 
deny  all  human  ability  and  concurrence  then  as  well  as 
in  regeneration;  but,  no,  they  teach  the  concurrence  of 
the  divine  and  human  wills  in  sanctification,  and  there- 
fore teach  Synergism  at  this  point.  Why  are  they  not 
afraid  of  nullifying  sola  gratia  here?  If  man  after  con- 
version can  use  his  will,  is  there  not  danger  that  the  idea 


Salient  Scripture  Teaching  77 

of  human  merit  might  creep  into  his  mind?  But  this 
matchless  passage  does  not  compromise  God's  grace,  be- 
cause the  power  to  will  comes  from  God's  quickening 
Spirit,  and  that  is  the  very  highest  incentive  for  willing 
and  doing  and  working  out  our  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling.  Note  this  point  carefully:  God  enables  the 
willing,  but  He  does  not  do  the  willing  for  man.  He 
(man)  must  use  the  ability  given  him  by  divine  grace. 
This  is  the  peculiar  function  and  prerogative  of  that  high 
enduement  of  man — a  free  will,  a  will  in  liberty.  Surely 
when  God  deals  with  man,  he  has  regard  for  His  own 
handiwork.  Inasmuch  He  made  him  a  moral  personality, 
He  will  not  treat  him  as  if  he  were  a  piece  of  clay  or 
an  irrational  animal,  to  which  He  would  never  say, 
"Repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel." 

Observe,  now,  that  the  same  general  principle  that 
prevails  in  effecting  conversion  is  employed  here  in 
sanctification :  "If  any  one  willeth  to  do  His  will,  he 
shall  know,"  etc. ;  "Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye 
might  have  life ;"  "How  often  would  I  have  gathered  you 
.  .  .  and  ye  would  not;"  "The  spirit  is  willing,  but  the 
flesh  is  weak;"  "If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye 
if  ye  do  them ;"  "He  that  heareth  my  words  and  doeth 
them;"  "Whosoever  will,  let  him  take  of  the  water  of 
life  freely."  Just  as  the  will  is  enabled  by  converting 
and  sanctifying  grace  to  perform  its  function  in  those 
moments,  so  it  is  enabled  by  preparatory  grace  to  per- 
form its  relevant  function  in  that  moment.  Its  function 
in  the  latter  case  is  that  of  passivity  or  surrender  toward 
God's  grace ;  in  the  former,  that  of  activity,  concurrence 
and  co-operation. 

At  this  point  the  inquiry  may  be  raised :     How  can 


78  Election  and  Conversion 

the  will  have  any  spiritual  ability  to  function  before  the 
sinner  is  converted  ?  It  would  be  more  pertinent  to  ask : 
How  can  God  convert  a  man  against  his  will?  If  he 
did  that,  it  would  not  be  a  spiritual  and  ethical  transac- 
tion, but  merely  a  coerced  and  machine-like  one.  It 
would  make  conversion  a  materialistic  instead  of  a 
spiritual  transaction.  If  man  were  saved  without  his 
consent,  he  would  not  be  saved  at  all,  for  sin  would  still 
be  retained  by  him  in  his  will.  Remember,  too,  this 
vital  fact — that  when  the  spiritual  will  is  enabled,  or 
effected,  or  created,  as  you  please,  by  prevenient  grace, 
the  sinner  is  still  not  saved  from  his  sin  and  corrup- 
tion ;  that  body  of  death  still  lies  within  him  like  a  blight 
and  hideous  deformity ;  his  will  cannot  remove  it ;  but  he 
can  beseech  God  to  deliver  him,  and  whenever  he  comes 
to  the  point  when  he  is  willing  to  let  God  save  him,  and 
God  alone,  God  will  do  His  part ;  He  will  deliver  him 
from  Satan's  thrall;  He  will  purify  him  from  defile- 
ment; He  will  draw  him  from  the  mire  and  the  clay, 
and  place  his  feet  upon  a  rock ;  He  will  breathe  the  new 
life  into  him. 

Perhaps  some  one  will  object  that  there  can  be  no 
spiritual  movement  in  the  soul  before  conversion.  Then 
why  speak  at  all  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  preparatory  acts? 
Is  not  the  Spirit's  work  always  spiritual?  or  does  He 
sometimes  act  like  a  material  force?  Moreover,  does 
not  the  Spirit  in  the  "acts  preparatory"  produce  con- 
viction of  sin?  Is  not  conviction  a  spiritual  motus  or 
condition  of  the  soul?  A  proper  estimate  of  God's  holy 
prevenient  grace  will  save  our  theology  from  much  con- 
fusion ;  will  keep  it  from  becoming  lifeless  and  pro- 
crustean. 


Salient  Scripture  Teaching  79 

A  most  interesting  question  is  that  of  the  inner 
nature  of  freedom  and  faith.  Of  course,  there  is  much 
about  their  nature  and  functioning  that  we  do  not  under- 
stand ;  but  it  is  not  all  mystery.  The  Missouri  brethren 
so  often  represent  faith  as  if  it  were  an  entity,  instead 
of  a  power,  quality  or  activity  of  the  soul.  Dr.  Pieper 
will  not  have  it  that  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  us  able  to 
believe;  he  contends  that  He  does  not  confer  the  ability, 
but  the  actual  belief  itself.  With  all  our  respect  for  his 
acuteness  and  sincerity,  this  seems  to  us  a  marvelous 
psychological  conception.  Then  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
do  our  believing  for  us !  Why  not  call  it  the  Holy 
Spirit's  faith,  then,  instead  of  ours?  When  Christ  said 
to  the  impatient  Jews,  "Believe  the  gospel,"  He  made  a 
mistake;  He  should  have  said,  "The  Holy  Spirit  will 
believe  for  you !"  So  with  every  Biblical  command  to  be- 
lieve. John  3:16  is  not  expressed  correctly;  it  should 
be — but  we  refrain.  In  the  same  mechanical  way  Dr. 
Pieper  treats  the  will.  Freedom  is  not  an  enabled  power 
or  energy ;  it  is  a  something  bestowed ;  not  a  principle  of 
life,  but  a  something  affixed.  But  does  the  Holy  Spirit 
do  our  willing  for  us?  Then  He  should  have  inspired 
John  otherwise;  not  to  say,  "Whosoever  will,  let  him 
take  of  the  water  of  life  freely,"  but,  "If  the  Spirit 
does  your  willing  for  you."  The  same  way  with  re- 
pentance ;  according  to  their  view,  it  is  not  something 
enabled,  but  something  bestowed.  Then  God  must  repent 
for  man ;  man  cannot  do  his  own  repenting.  According 
to  that  logic,  God  does  not  give  man  the  ability  to  walk, 
but  bestows  the  actual  walking  upon  him.  So  God  would 
have  to  do  our  walking  for  us. 

Take  a  passage  cited  by  Dr.  Pieper  in  defense  of  his 


80  Election  and  Conversion 

view,  Phil.  1 :29 :  "Because  unto  you  it  is  given  in  the 
behalf  of  Christ,  not  only  to  believe  on  Him,  but  also  to 
suffer  in  His  behalf."  (We  quote  the  whole  verse;  our 
friend  did  not.)  Here  is  his  gloss:  "To  eis  auton 
pisteuein,  not  merely  the  ability  to  believe  on  Him."  This 
is  almost  the  letter  that  killeth.  But  if  "it  is  given  unto 
us  to  believe,"  surely  we  must  do  the  believing,  must 
exercise  the  power  that  has  been  given  us.  He  does  not 
say,  "It  was  given  to  the  Holy  Spirit  to  believe  for  us," 
but  it  was  "given  unto  us  to  believe."  More  than  that, 
the  part  that  our  friend  left  out  is  important:  "It  is 
given  unto  you  .  .  .  also  to  suffer  in  His  behalf."  Ac- 
cording to  his  exegesis  of  "belief,"  the  Philippians  should 
not  suffer  at  all,  but  the  Spirit  ought  to  do  their  suffering 
for  them.  But  see  how  beautifully  consistent  Paul  is: 
just  as  the  Philippians  had  been  enabled  by  divine  grace 
to  believe  on  Christ,  so  now  they  were  enabled  to  suffer 
in  His  behalf.  There  are  no  logical  gaps  nor  organic 
breaks  in  the  divine  modus  operandi. 

Having  dwelt  at  some  length  on  two  classical  pass- 
ages, we  can  tarry  to  examine  just  one  more — that  which 
depicts  the  three  thousand  conversions  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  Peter  preached  a  powerful  sermon  to  the 
multitude.  He  spoke  both  the  law  and  the  gospel  to 
them,  and  connected  the  Messiah  of  the  New  Testament 
with  the  history  and  prophecy  of  the  Old.  His  words 
were  not  ineffective,  for  his  hearers  were  smitten  in 
their  hearts,  and  cried  out,  "Brethren,  what  shall  we 
do  ?"  See  how  powerfully  they  were  convicted ;  yet  it 
was  still  only  preparatory  grace,  not  converting  grace. 
Was  that  conviction  an  inner  spiritual  motus,  or  was  it 
only  the  indentation  made  on  a  rubber  ball?     Peter  did 


Salient  Scripture  Teaching  81 

not  haggle  about  the  word  "do"  which  they  had  used, 
and  say,  "You  cannot  do  anything  until  you  are  con- 
verted." It  was  no  time  to  interject  the  doctrine  of 
election,  either.  He  simply  did  the  practical  thing,  as 
he  was  led  by  the  Spirit ;  he  replied :  "Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
unto  the  remission  of  sins ;  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you 
and  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  unto  Him."  By 
more  exhortation  (see  the  next  verses)  he  brought  many 
of  them  to  the  yielding  point,  and  the  record  goes  on : 
"Then  they  that  received  his  word  were  baptized ;  and 
there  were  added  on  that  day  about  three  thousand 
souls." 

Observe  that  Peter  does  not  show  much  regard  for 
our  beautifully  schematized  theological  systems.  Perhaps 
he  was  not  a  very  good  theologian !  He  even  commands 
unregenerate  men  to  repent,  bids  them  be  baptized,  and 
then  adds,  "Ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Here  it  might  even  seem  that  regeneration  came  after 
repentance  and  baptism.  Peter,  be  careful !  We  are  on 
the  lookout  for  Synergism ! 

But  is  there  disorder  here?  Was  God  the  author 
of  confusion  on  that  epoch-making  day?  Verily  not. 
He  observed  His  regular  order,  though  He  did  not  label 
the  various  steps  as  we  do  in  our  theologies.  Let  us 
analyze:  First,  Peter  himself  was  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  next,  he  preached  the  law  to  the  sinful  multitude, 
and  vividly  pointed  out  their  terrible  sin  in  crucifying 
the  Lord  of  glory;  the  Holy  Spirit  was  there,  and  per- 
formed His  function  through  the  words  of  Peter — He 


82  Election  and  Conversion 

wrought  conviction ;  this  was  the  call  and  the  illumination 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  law.  But  Peter  mingled 
a  great  deal  of  the  gospel  in  his  sermon.  Read  it  over 
and  see  how  often  he  spoke  of  Christ  as  the  Lord  and 
Saviour  and  Messiah.  Thus  when  he  reached  the  end 
of  his  sermon — or  this  part  of  it — his  hearers,  though 
powerfuly  convicted,  were  not  wholly  in  despair,  or  they 
would  not  have  cried  out,  "Brethren,  what  shall  we  do?" 
There  is  at  least  a  gleam  of  hope  there — something  of 
the  call  and  illumination  of  the  gospel,  with  their  ac- 
companying grace.  Peter  now  knew  that  they  were 
ready  for  the  next  step.  Prevenient  grace  had  made 
them  conscious  of  that  dead  weight  of  sin  within  them, 
and  had  also  made  them  willing  to  be  saved  from  its 
fell  blight  and  poison.  Therefore  he  said,  "Repent." 
Now  repentance  does  not  mean  mere  sorrow  for  sin; 
it  really  means,  as  Luther  found  out  at  a  most  critical 
time,  "a  change  of  mind"— metanoia — the  very  word 
Peter  used  here  in  the  verb  form.  Therefore  it  means 
a  change  of  mind  respecting  sin  and  salvation  or  Christ ; 
and  so  it  consists  of  contrition  and  faith  (Augsburg 
Confession,  Art.  XI).  So  the  inner  meaning  of  Peter's 
command  was,  "Turn  from  sin  and  turn  to  Christ." 
Faith  is  also  implied  in  being  "baptized  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins."  So 
Peter's  exhortation  was  virtually  the  same  as  that  with 
which  Christ  began  His  ministry :  "Repent  ye,  and  be- 
lieve the  gospel." 

And  now  comes  the  crux:  How,  according  to 
Missouri's  view  and  our  own,  could  those  three  thousand 
people  repent  and  believe  before  they  were  regenerated 
or  converted?    For  Dr.  Pieper  we  can  see  no  escape,  for 


Salient  Scripture  Teaching  83 

he  will  have  it  that  before  conversion  man  can  do,  will, 
wish  absolutely  nothing.  He  is  like  a  block  or  a  stone 
or,  perchance,  a  rubber  ball.  But,  according  to  our  view, 
the  explanation  is  quite  simple :  as  prevenient  grace  had 
aroused  those  sinners,  convicted  them,  and  made  them 
willing  to  surrender  to  God  and  to  let  Him  save  them, 
Peter  knew,  being  guided  by  God's  Spirit,  that,  if  he 
told  them  to  repent  and  believe,  and  they  were  willing 
to  do  so,  not  by  their  own  natural  strength,  but  by  the 
strength  imparted  to  them  by  grace,  then  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  continue  His  gracious  work,  would  breathe  the 
new  life  into  them,  and  that  would  give  them  repentance 
and  faith,  or,  in  other  words,  would  enable  them  to  re- 
pent and  believe.  Then,  if  they  went  still  further,  and 
submitted  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  He  would  bestow 
a  special  gift  or  enduement  upon  them,  just  as  many 
another  man  has  received  a  special  blessing  in  baptism. 
Thus  the  living,  organic  order  of  salvation  was  followed ; 
they  were  regenerated,  justified  and  saved  in  a  spiritual 
and  ethical  way.  Salvation  was  not  forced  upon  them, 
and  yet  the  whole  process  was  solely  by  the  grace  of 
God.  Not  a  joint  or  crevice,  however  fine,  where  human 
merit  or  pride  or  boasting  could  creep  in. 

The  question  may  be  asked  why  God  so  often  com- 
mands men  to  do  what  they  by  nature  are  unable  to  do. 
For  example,  why  does  He  command  them  to  repent 
and  believe,  when  they  can  do  neither  in  their  own 
strength?  The  secret  is  an  open  one.  God  never  com- 
mands without  conferring  the  ability  to  obey,  "if  there 
first  be  a  willing  mind."  The  very  command  is  spiritual, 
and  carries  with  it  the  enabling  power.  Take  two  ex- 
amples from  the  Ufe  of  Christ.     In  the  presence  of  a 


84  Election  and  Conversion 

vast  multitude  of  hungry  people,  and  with  only  a  few 
loaves  and  fishes  available,  Jesus  said  to  His  disciples, 
"Give  ye  them  to  eat."  How  could  they  carry  out  such 
a  command?  But  in  faith  they  obeyed  Him  at  every 
step,  and  we  know  the  result — they  actually  fed  the  whole 
multitude,  and  had  much  more  food  left  than  they  began 
with. 

Again,  a  palsied,  bed-ridden  man,  entirely  unable  to 
walk,  was  brought  to  Jesus  (Matt.  9:1-8).  After  some 
conversation.  He  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy:  "Arise, 
and  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  to  thy  house."  The  com- 
mand without  the  conferred  ability  would  have  been 
absurd ;  but  the  man  had  a  willing  mind,  and  so  Christ 
gave  him  strength  to  walk  and  even  to  carry  his  couch. 
"So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 

One  thing  that  we  have  sorely  missed  in  the  Con- 
cordia dogmatic — nothing  has  been  said  about  the  re- 
generation of  infants  in  baptism  ;  nothing  about  baptismal 
grace  in  adult  baptism.  The  whole  treatment  seems  to 
go  on  the  assumption  that  regeneration  or  conversion 
pertains  only  to  adults.  Do  not  our  Missouri  brethren 
believe  in  regenerating  grace  in  and  through  baptism? 
The  Lutheran  Church  makes  so  much  of  the  vital  relation 
between  baptism  and  regeneration,  just  as  the  New 
Testament  does,  that  we  wonder  a  whole  book  can  be 
written  by  a  Lutheran  theologian  on  the  subject  of  re- 
generation without  any  mention  of  baptism.  Surely  most 
of  our  children  of  the  Church  receive  in  baptism  the 
seeds  of  regeneration ;  then  when  they  are  taught  about 
Christ  and  His  love,  these  seminal  principles  unfold  and 
active  faith  is  produced,  laying  hold  on  the  merits  of 
Christ.     In    her    practice    Missouri    is    faithful    in    the 


Salient  Scripture  Teaching  85 

matters  of  baptism  and  catechization,  but,  somehow,  in 
her  dogmatic  discussions  of  election  and  conversion  she 
seems  to  overlook  these  important  and  vital  steps  in  the 
Order  of  Salvation.  If  children  are  potentially  regen- 
erated in  baptism,  how  would  that  fit  into  Missouri's 
doctrine  of  election?  Luther  taught  us  always  to  look 
back  to  our  baptism  for  assurance  of  salvation ;  he  never 
once,  so  far  as  we  know,  admonished  us  to  look  for 
assurance  to  God's  eternal  decrees. 


VIII 

PREPARATORY  ACTS  OF  GRACE 

IN  the  next  place,  we  must  notice  some  things  in  Dr. 
Pieper's  chapter  on  "Preparation  for  Conversion."  If 
we  mistake  not,  he  never  calls  this  preparation  "grace," 
but  only  "acts,"  "actus,"  "motus,"  "praeparatio,"  etc. 
Just  as  if  the  gospel  call  were  not  of  grace!  This,  it 
seems  to  us,  is  casting  slight  upon  a  most  vital  movement 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  application  of  redemption. 
However,  there  is  probably  reason  for  this  careful  re- 
straint about  calling  the  preparatory  work  a  work  of 
grace ;  for  it  were  called  grace,  and  were  grace,  that 
would  introduce  grace  before  conversion,  and  that  would 
never  do,  as  it  would  overthrow  this  particular  dogma 
of  conversion  and  election. 

In  a  previous  chapter  the  author  seems  to  us  to 
torture  language  in  order  to  make  it  appear  that  those 
theologians  who  believe  in  "new  powers  imparted  by 
grace"  before  conversion,  always  mean  natural  powers. 
Note  how  he  puts  it  (page  36)  :  "What  is  intended  by 
the  phrase,  'powers  imparted  by  grace,'  never  denotes, 
in  reality,  powers  of  grace,  but  natural  powers." 

We  wonder  whether  this  is  really  generous.  How 
could  men  of  sincerity  and  scholarship  say  one  thing 
and  mean  another?  Nor  do  we  see  how  any  man  could 
be  guilty  of  such  a  mental  hiatus  as  to  mean  that  "im- 
parted powers  of  grace"  are  "natural  powers."  Men  do 
not  generally  think  in  paradoxes  like  that.     They  might 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  87 

almost  as  well  call  white  black  and  good  evil.  But  what- 
ever may  be  said  of  others,  when  we  speak  of  the  effects 
of  prevenient  grace,  we  do  not  mean  the  natural  powers 
of  the  will,  but  the  new  powers  imparted  by  God's  Spirit. 
We  mean  what  we  say,  and  will  not  permit  a  false 
meaning  to  be  put  into  our  words. 

But  let  us  notice  some  of  Dr.  Pieper's  statements. 
On  page  Z7  he  says :  "Keep  this  in  mind :  previous  to 
his  conversion,  or  before  the  light  of  faith  is  kindled 
in  his  heart,  man  is  spiritually  dead,  and  can,  previous 
to  his  conversion,  employ  the  spiritual  powers  offered 
in  God's  gracious  call  as  little  as  one  who  is  physically 
dead  can  employ  the  physical  vitality,  if  it  were  offered 
to  him." 

This  is  most  remarkable.  If  "spiritual  powers" 
cannot  be  employed  by  the  sinner,  why  in  the  world 
does  God  offer  them  to  him  ?  That  is  one  of  the  strangest 
things  you  could  imagine — God  offering  spiritual  powers 
to  a  dead  man  who  can  in  nowise  employ  them.  And 
why  does  God  call  the  sinner  if  He  does  not  intend  to 
arouse  him  ?  Oh !  let  us  not  represent  God  as  acting  in 
an  irrational  way.  Does  the  reader  begin  to  see  now 
why  the  present  writer  felt  in  conscience  bound  to  take 
up  this  subject  for  discussion?  We  simply  could  not  let 
such  ideas  of  God's  gracious  dealings  with  men  go  un- 
corrected, for  surely  we  would  not  want  to  try  to  cement 
the  Lutheran  Church  into  a  union  on  such  a  basis  of 
theology. 

Dr.  Pieper  says  rightly  (page  104)  :  "Very  properly, 
therefore,  the  Formula  of  Concord  rejects  the  teaching 
that  man,  when  grace  is  offered  to  him,  in  any  way  'can 
qualify  and  prepare  himself  for  grace.'     On  the  other 


88  Election  and  Conversion 

hand,  it  is  correct  to  say  that  God  prepares  man  for 
conversion."  So  we  all  say.  But  when  man  has  been 
awakened  by  the  call  and  illumination  to  his  condition, 
then  he  surely  can,  by  his  newly  acquired  power,  let  God 
prepare  him  for  conversion.  The  idea  that  God  could 
"prepare  him  for  conversion,"  and  yet  leave  him  as  dead 
as  he  was  before,  is,  to  our  mind,  an  inconsistent  one. 
In  that  case  God  would  work  over  him  precisely  as  an 
undertaker  works  over  a  corpse.  This  is  just  as  poor 
anthropology  as  theology. 

But  Dr.  Pieper  cannot  always  be  consistent  with  his 
preconceived  theories,  even  when  he  quotes  Luther  to 
corroborate  his  views.  On  page  105  he  says:  "Luther 
was  accustomed  to  express  this  matter  thus :  'Man  will 
not  flee  to  Christ  unless  he  has  first  tasted  hell.'  "  The 
italics  are  ours  except  the  word  "first."  How  can  a  dead 
man  "flee  to  Christ"  or  "taste"  anything?  Oh,  brethren, 
brethren,  when  we  are  dealing  with  man's  salvation,  we 
must  remember  that  we  are  deahng  with  spiritual  and 
psychical  facts,  not  with  material  blocks  and  stones  and 
corpses !  Afterward  Dr.  Pieper  quotes  Luther  as  saying : 
"The  law  prepares  for  grace  (ad  gratiam  praeparat)  by 
revealing  and  augmenting  sin  and  by  humiliating  the 
proud,  in  order  that  they  may  desire  help  from  Christ." 
This  quotation  is  very  unfortunate  for  Dr.  Pieper's 
theory,  for  a  "dead"  man  could  not  "desire  help  from 
Christ."  Luther  was  right,  for  even  in  convicting  men 
of  sin  by  the  law,  God  never  fails  to  accompany  the  law 
by  the  gospel,  and  thus  create  a  "desire  for  help  from 
Christ,"  which  desire  must  be  the  result  of  grace.  Thus 
"the  law  is  a  schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  Christ." 

Dr.    Pieper    continues :    "Chemnitz    stigmatizes    as 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  89 

slander  the  Romanist  charge  that  the  Lutherans  taught 
no  'preparation'  for  the  acceptance  of  justifying  grace. 
He  says :  *It  is  untrue  when  they  charge  in  the  Ninth 
Canon  that  we  deny  that  any  motions  of  the  will,  im- 
parted and  quickened  by  God,  precede  the  acceptance  of 
justification.  For  we  do  teach  that  repentance  or  con- 
trition comes  first,  and  these  cannot  exist  without  great, 
sincere,  and  earnest  motions  of  the  zvill.  But  we  do  not 
say  that  penitence  or  contrition  precede  as  something 
m,eritorious." 

By  noting  the  words  and  phrases  which  we  have 
italicised  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  Chemnitz  overthrows 
Dr.  Pieper's  central  position.  He  would  make  the  "dead" 
sinner  even  more  active  before  conversion  than  we  would 
ourself,  for  we  would  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that 
"repentance"  goes  before  regeneration,  because  repen- 
tance has  its  faith  side  as  well  as  its  contrition  side. 
With  Chemnitz  we  also  deny  that  there  is  anything 
meritorious  in  penitence  and  contrition. 

Dr.  Pieper  frequently  refers  to  and  quotes  from 
Latermann  and  Musaeus.  We  must  confess  frankly 
that  we  have  no  direct  acquaintance  with  the  writings 
of  these  theologians ;  but,  if  Dr.  Pieper  quotes  them  cor- 
rectly— and  we  have  no  doubt  he  does — they  surely  went 
too  far  toward  synergism.  H  they  say  that,  before  con- 
version, the  sinner  is  capable  of  "good  conduct"  toward 
grace  and  of  "co-operation  unto  conversion,"  we  would 
object ;  for  that  would  imply,  first,  some  merit  in  man 
("good  conduct"),  and,  second,  a  positive  activity  of  the 
human  will  before  conversion  ("co-operation"),  and  thus 
would  enable  the  sinner  partly  to  convert  himself ;  where- 
as we  hold  that  the  prevenient  will  is  purely  passive  at 


90  Election  and  Conversion 

this  point,  and  can  only  say :  "Lord,  have  mercy  upon 
me  a  sinner;  I  can  do  nothing;  Thou,  and  Thou  alone, 
must  save  me !"  Just  as  Peter  cried,  w^hen  sinking  in 
the  waves :  "Lord,  save  me,  or  I  perish ;"  he  could 
not  do  a  thing  to  save  himself ;  he  could  simply  let  Christ 
save  him.  As  he  did  let  Christ  save  him,  he  was  saved ; 
but  if  he  had  not  left  Christ  save  him,  he  would  have 
perished — unless,  perchance,  Christ  had  saved  him  by 
physical  force,  which  He  will  never  do  for  the  sinner. 
So  we  refuse  to  be  put  into  the  company  of  Latermann 
and  Musaeus,  if  they  taught  what  has  been  attributed 
to  them. 

At  this  point  Dr.  Pieper  again  tries  to  put  his 
opponents  into  a  logical  cul-de-sac  (pages  108-9).  He 
quotes  from  the  Strassburg  Faculty.  We  give  the  gist  of 
it :  How  could  a  will  created  by  grace — in  other  words, 
the  new  power  imparted  by  the  Spirit — exercise  any 
choice  between  good  and  evil?  If  it  is  a  spiritually 
enabled  will,  it  surely  could  choose  only  in  accord  with 
the  will  of  God. 

This,  we  reply,  is  simply  another  example  of  the 
materialistic  and  mechanical  way  of  looking  at  ethical 
and  spiritual  realities.  It  comes  from  a  misconception 
of  an  ethical  will.  More  study  of  the  deep  principles 
of  Christian  ethics  would  be  helpful.  A  will — that  is, 
a  good  will — is  not  something  that  must  choose  one  way, 
and  only  one,  but  a  faculty  that  has  the  power  of  alternate 
choice.  Otherwise  it  is  not  a  will,  in  the  true  sense  of 
the  term,  but  an  enslaved  will.  The  corrupt  will  of  the 
unsaved  sinner  is  not  truly  a  will,  for  it  can  choose  only 
one  way.  Not  so  with  a  good  will,  a  spiritually  enabled 
will;  it  is  good  by  the  very  token  that  it  is  free  from 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  91 

bondage,  and  can  elect.  We  prove  this  statement  from 
Christ  Himself  (John  8:34-37):  "Every  one  that  com- 
mitteth  sin  is  the  slave  of  sin.  And  the  slave  abideth 
not  in  the  house  forever ;  the  son  abideth  forever.  If 
therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free 
indeed."  When  Adam  came  from  the  creative  hand  of 
God,  was  his  will  a  good  will  or  an  evil  one?  A  good 
will,  surely,  for  God  never  created  evil ;  and  yet  he  had 
the  power  of  alternate  choice,  and,  sadly  enough,  made 
a  misuse  of  it. 

Missouri  teaches  that,  after  conversion,  the  will  is 
made  free  by  divine  grace.  If  so,  according  to  her  own 
logic,  this  will  could  choose  only  one  way,  because  it 
is  a  will  established  by  grace;  yet  Missouri  teaches  that 
those  who  have  been  converted  can  backslide.  But  how 
can  a  will  established  by  God's  grace  ever  decide  against 
that  grace?  This  would  seem  to  be  another  "mystery," 
this  time  a  psychological  one.  However,  according  to 
our  view,  that  a  good  will  is  one  that  has  the  power 
of  alternate  choice,  there  is  no  difficulty. 

But  even  taking  Missouri's  mechanical  view  of  the 
will,  there  might  be  said  to  be  two  wills  in  man  after 
the  call  and  prior  to  his  conversion — the  old  evil  one 
and  the  good  enabled  one.  They  would  certainly  oppose 
each  other.  The  evil  will  would  try  to  overcome  and 
destroy  the  good  one  that  God  has  stirred  into  activity; 
and  that  would  account  for  the  schism  that  occurs  in 
every  sinner's  soul  when  the  Holy  Spirit  convicts  him 
through  the  law  and  offers  him  pardon  through  the 
gospel.  Note  Paul's  graphic  portrayal  of  the  two  wills 
within  him,  the  one  lusting  against  the  other  (Rom. 
7:13-25).  Also  Christ:  "The  spirit  indeed  is  willing, 
but  the  flesh  is  weak." 


92  Election  and  Conversion 

The  rest  of  our  Concordia  friend's  dissertation  on 
preparatory  work  is  not  only  full  of  contradictions, 
strained  reasoning  and  ex  parte  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  also  reduces  the  preparatory  work  of  the  Spirit 
through  the  call  and  illuminiation  to  nihil.  The  idea  that 
all  these  prevenient  impressions  are  only  "from  with- 
out" is,  in  our  opinion,  wide  of  the  mark.  That  would 
be  an  anomalous  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  would 
simply  make  outside  impressions,  without  in  the  least 
affecting  the  inside  of  the  sinner's  soul.  Why,  even 
the  "rubber-ball"  illustration  would  show  more  than  that, 
for  you  could  not  make  the  least  impression  upon  the 
ball's  surface  without  causing  a  movement  of  all  the 
atoms  within !  Much  less  a  human  soul  where  the 
operations  are  not  mechanical,  but  psychical  and  spiritual. 
But  even  here  our  earnest  friend  cannot  preserve  his 
consistency,  for  in  referring  to  Paul's  discourse  before 
Festus  and  Agrippa  (page  114),  he  says:  "The  context 
shows  that  the  whole  company  were  listening  attentively, 
and  that  Festus  and  Agrippa  were  really  inwardly  moved 
and  powerfully  agitated."  Yet,  so  far  as  we  know,  they 
never  were  converted.  This  shows  how  difficult  it  is 
for  any  man,  however  learned  and  sincere,  to  sustain  an 
inconsistent  theory.  If  this  sounds  too  severe,  it  is 
meant  kindly. 

It  is  all  but  impossible  for  our  brethren  across  the 
line  to  keep  their  modes  of  expression  in  accord  with 
their  own  views :  they  are  constantly  overstepping  the 
line.  Even  good  Dr.  Walter  had  this  failing.  See  this 
quotation  on  page  109 :  "Conversion,  indeed,  does  not 
occur  ordinarily  without  several  preparatory  phenomena 
(Vorgaenge)  within  man,  and  in  this  sense  conversion 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  93 

is  accomplished  by  degrees,  gradually;  but  conversion 
itself  in  every  case  occurs  in  an  instant."  Notice  "with- 
in man,"  not  merely  ''outside." 

Take  one  of  Dr.  Walter's  favorite  illustrations 
(pages  113,  114)— that  of  a  besieged  fortress.  "The 
fortress  receives  impressions  from  without;  it  is  bom- 
barded and  attacked.  The  besieged,  however,  do  not 
make  common  cause  with  the  besieging  force,  but  try 
to  prevent  the  taking  of  the  fortress." 

To  our  mind,  this  is  a  very  ineffective  illustration; 
but  let  us  admit  it  for  the  sake  of  argument.  If  the  walls 
were  violently  bombarded  from  without,  and  were  be- 
ginning to  topple,  it  is  likely  that  the  people  within  the 
fortress  would  be  a  good  deal  impressed,  a  good  deal 
agitated,  just  as  the  human  heart  is  when  it  is  assaulted 
by  the  law.  Again,  if  the  besieging  forces  did  not  suc- 
ceed in  taking  the  fortress,  it  would  be  because  the  army 
within  were  too  strong  for  them,  and  so  they  were  finally 
driven  away  by  superior  force  and  skill.  Here  again 
the  illustration  fails,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be  over- 
come by  force;  nor  does  He  act  upon  the  soul  by 
coercion.  But  suppose  the  people  within  the  walls  finally 
capitulate ;  this  must  have  occurred  in  one  of  two  ways : 
either  because  they  were  forcibly  overcome  while  yet 
resisting,  or  because  they  at  length  became  willing  to  sur- 
render. In  which  way  do  our  Missouri  brethren  think 
the  transaction  takes  place  in  the  case  of  a  sinner's 
conversion  ? 

We  must  pause  here  to  remark  on  this  matter  of 
the  sinner  being  converted  without  his  consent,  or,  in 
other  words,  by  force.  If  he  is  positively  dead,  like  a 
corpse,  before  his  conversion,  he  must  be  converted  by 


94  Election  and  Conversion 

coercion.  If  so,  how  can  it  be  by  grace?  Could  a  con- 
version that  was  forced  upon  an  unwilHng  sinner  be  called 
a  work  of  grace?  Would  ,not  that  method  nullify  sola 
gratia?  We  ask  the  question  kindly,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  driving  our  brethren  into  a  corner ;  merely  as  a  matter 
to  be  seriously  pondered.  But  if  the  call  awakens  the 
sinner  to  his  condition,  and  prevenient  grace  enables  him 
to  be  willing  to  let  God  save  him,  and  he  so  consents, 
then  the  whole  process  is  ethical  and  spiritual,  and  there- 
fore— sola  gratia. 

Another  of  Dr.  Walter's  remarks  is  found  on  page 
117:  "When  the  Lord  says,  'Thou  art  not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God,'  Mark  12:34,  He  would  say,  'There 
are  in  thee  even  now  preparatory  effects  of  the  Spirit ;' 
for  the  scribe  here  addressed  had  already  yielded  to  a 
better  understanding  of  the  law." 

Note  the  words,  "in,"  "effects,"  and  "had  already 
yielded ;"  and  yet  all  of  it  had  taken  place  in  the  man's 
soul  before  his  conversion,  for  we  do  not  know  even 
today  whether  he  was  ever  converted  or  not.  Yet  our 
author  says :  "In  the  same  connection  Walter  rejects 
every  status  niedius.  He  says :  'Whoever  teaches  that  a 
man  may  be  converted,  and  yet  not  be  entirely  converted, 
contradicts  the  Scriptures,  which  know  but  two  states, 
death  and  life.  Whoever  is  not  under  grace  is  under 
wrath ;  whoever  is  not  in  life  is  still  in  death ;  whoever 
is  not  on  the  way  to  heaven  is  on  the  way  to  hell ;  who- 
ever is  an  unsaved  person  is  a  damned  person.  There 
is  no  twilight  stage,  no  middle  state  between  light  and 
darkness.'  " 

How  do  these  radical  statements  comport  with  what 
he  says  above  about  the  scribe  having  "already  yielded 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  95 

to  a  better  understanding  of  the  law?"  How  could  a 
man  utterly  "dead"  and  in  utter  "darkness"  commend 
the  lofty  spiritual  import  of  the  law,  as  Christ  had  in- 
terpreted it  to  him  ?  This  statement  entirely  ignores  both 
God's  call  and  illumination  before  conversion,  making 
them  ineffective.  Besides,  if  there  is  no  "twilight" 
stage,  God's  method  in  nature  and  His  method  in  grace 
are  utterly  diverse :  for  in  nature  there  is  always  a  twi- 
light stage  (or,  rather,  dawn)  before  the  sun  comes  up  in 
its  full  glory.  Why,  the  Bible  itself  recognizes  a  period 
of  dawn  in  spiritual  matters  (2  Pet.  1 :19)  :  "Until  the 
day  dawn,  and  the  day-star  arise  in  your  hearts." 

Still  another  quotation  from  Walter  is  given  on 
pages  117  and  118:  "It  sounds  very  fine  when  modern 
theologians  say :  'When  God  gives  strength  to  uncon- 
verted man,  he  is  able  to  co-operate  toward  his  con- 
version.' " 

We  pause,  lest  we  be  misunderstood,  to  say  we  reject 
the  view  that  the  unconverted  man  can  "co-operate  toward 
his  conversion ;"  the  word  "co-operate"  is,  to  our  mind, 
too  strong  a  word  at  that  stage ;  the  called  and  illumined 
sinner  can  do  nothing  tozvard  his  conversion ;  he  can 
simply  let  God  save  him;  that  much  ability  God  gives 
in  the  call  and  illumination — to  be  passive  in  God's 
hands ;  even  as  long  as  he  tries  to  save  himself,  he  will 
balk  God's  efforts  to  save  him.  This  lies  at  the  very 
heart  of  moral  and  spiritual  realities :  a  sinner  cannot 
convert  himself,  nor  forgive  himself,  nor  cleanse  away 
his  own  sins. 

Dr.  Walter  pursues  :  "But  that  is  wrong ;  for  a  dead 
person  cannot  make  use  of  imparted  powers  as  long  as 
he  lacks  the  strength  necessary  for  the  employment  of 


96  Election  and  Conversion 

such  powers,  that  is  to  say,  as  long  as  he  lacks  life.  You 
may  roll  a  dead  body  back  and  forth,  and  by  applying 
electricity  cause  him  to  open  his  eyes  or  his  mouth,  and 
so  on,  but  all  this  remains  a  result  of  forces  affecting 
him  from  without.  Only  he  who  has  become  subjectively 
a  possessor  of  power  can  move  himself." 

Oh !  no !  no !  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  work  in  that 
mechanical  way  on  the  human  heart.  Electricity  is  a 
dead  force,  a  purely  mechanical  energy,  but  Paul  says 
(1  Cor.  15  :45)  :  "The  last  Adam  (Christ)  became  a  Ufe- 
giving  spirit;"  and  (2  Cor.  3:6):  "The  letter  killeth, 
but  the  Spirit  giveth  life."  We  maintain  once  more  that, 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  calls  the  sinner  to  grace  and  sal- 
vation, He  does  not  assault  him  like  a  dead  force,  but 
with  a  living  power  and  persuasion ;  He  awakens  him 
to  his  undone  and  defiled  condition  and  shows  him  Christ 
as  his  Saviour.  If  the  Spirit  can  do  that  much  through 
the  call  and  illumination.  He  can  also  quicken  the  will, 
or  confer  a  new  will,  to  the  extent  that  the  sinner  will 
be  willing  to  let  God  pardon  and  save  him.  Observe 
also  the  contradiction  in  the  above  quotation  from 
Walter:  "A  dead  person  cannot  make  use  of  imparted 
powers,"  etc.  Then  how  can  they  be  imparted,  or  if 
they  can  be,  what  good  does  it  do  for  God  to  impart 
them?  And  also  what  good  would  it  do  to  apply  elec- 
tricity to  a  dead  body — unless  it  would  be  merely 
for  scientific  and  experimental  purposes,  or  perchance 
to  satisfy  idle  curiosity? 

Apology  is  made  to  Dr.  Pieper  for  our  having  to 
say  that  his  chapter  on  "The  'Possibility'  of  Conversion" 
is  a  species  of  hair-splitting  that  ought  to  be  left  entirely 
in  the  domain  of  dogmatic  liberty,  and  should  never  for 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  97 

a  moment  be  permitted  to  cause  schism  in  our  great  and 
beloved  Lutheran  Zion.  It  is  somewhat  ingenious,  but 
far  from  convincing.  It  contains  contradictions.  Com- 
menting on  Isa.  55  :6,  "Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  He  may 
be  found,"  he  quotes  Osiander  as  follows:  "The  Lord 
is  near  and  can  be  found  when,  through  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel.  He  offers  salvation  to  us.  But  when  He 
takes  away  His  Word,  so  that  it  no  longer  is  correctly 
understood.  He  can  be  neither  found  nor  properly 
worshipped.  Let  us,  then,  gratefully  seise  the  oppor- 
tunity by  means  of  which  the  Lord  in  His  grace 
approaches  us." 

But  a  "dead"  man  could  not  "gratefully  seize  the 
opportunity."  You  see,  it  is  impossible  for  our  dear 
friends,  the  electionists,  to  maintain  their  consistency. 
We  hope  they  will  not  reply  that  such  is  the  teaching 
of  the  Bible,  and  thus  try  to  fix  the  responsibility  for 
dogmatic  inconsistency  upon  the  inspired  volume.  And 
when  does  God  take  away  His  Word?  He  never  does 
this  arbitarily.  When  He  says  (Gen.  6:3)  :  "My  Spirit 
shall  not  always  strive  with  man,"  it  is  because,  as  the 
context  shows,  they  have,  by  their  terrible  sins  and  stub- 
born resistance,  "grieved  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God"  (Eph. 
4:30);  or  as  is  said  in  Gen.  6:6:  "And  it  repented 
Jehovah  that  He  had  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it 
grieved  Him  at  the  heart."  No,  the  Bible  never  repre- 
sents God  as  acting  in  an  arbitrary  or  capricious  way. 

Further  on  (page  120),  Dr.  Pieper  himself  says: 
"The  expressions,  'possibility  of  conversion,'  'opportun- 
ity' of  conversion,  'possibility  of  being  converted,'  should 
then  be  retained  in  the  sense,  viz.,  that  the  saving  grace 
of   God  comprises   all   men,   and   that  the   Holy   Spirit 


98  Election  and  Conversion 

operates  in  all  Ji  carers  unto  conversion,  and  that  the 
cause  of  non-conversion  is  to  be  sought  solely  in  man's 
resistance.  This  is  summed  up  in  the  terms  gratia 
sufficiens.  The  Scriptures  teach  gratia  sufficiens,  that 
is  to  say,  that  God  operates  through  the  call  in  such  a 
manner  and  to  such  an  extent  that  all  hearers  of  the 
Word  may  be  'enlightened,  converted  and  saved,'  and 
that  no  hearer  remains  unconverted  by  reason  of  some 
deficiency  in  the  operations  of  divine  grace  or  by  reason 
of  a  lack  of  gracious  intent  on  the  part  of  God." 

We  do  not  want  to  be  hypercritical,  but  since 
Missouri  constantly  makes  all  her  favorite  figures  of 
speech  "go  on  all  fours,"  as  the  saying  is,  we  would  kindly 
ask.  How  can  "dead"  sinners  be  "hearers  of  the  Word  ?" 
If  they  are  "dead"  like  logs  or  corpses,  how  can  it  be 
said  that  "the  Holy  Spirit  operates  in  all  hearers  unto 
conversion^'  Our  brethren  ought  to  remember  that  every 
simile  is  defective  in  some  points,  while  entirely  pertinent 
in  others,  that  is,  the  points  in  which  the  parallelism  is 
intended.    "Omne  simile  claudicat." 

What  Dr.  Pieper  says  on  pages  121-123  on  Syner- 
gism does  not  concern  us,  for,  as  we  have  so  often  said 
before,  we  reject  Synergism,  which  means  that  the  uncon- 
verted sinner,  in  his  natural  state,  can  co-operate  with 
God  in  his  salvation,  or  that,  by  means  of  spiritual  abilities 
imparted  in  the  Call,  he  can  actively  co-operate  or  in  any 
way  help  to  convert  and  save  himself.  Most  positively 
do  we  reject  Melanchthon's  formula  in  the  last  edition 
of  his  Loci,  when  he  enumerated  "three  causes  of  con- 
version, viz.,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Word,  and  the  will 
of  man"  (Jacobs,  id.,  page  224).  If,  after  the  sinner's 
awakening  through  the  Call,  he  would  be  saved,  he  must 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  99 

simply  surrender  to  God's  saving  power,  must  be 
quiescent  in  God's  hand,  must  let  God  save  him;  and 
this  He  can  do,  because  God's  Call  to  him  has  been  a 
living,  energizing  Call. 

A  word  now  as  to  what  Dr.  Walter  called  vtotus 
inevitabiles.    This  is  the  scholastic  term  which  he  applied 
to  the  motions  or  acts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  prior  to  con- 
version.    They  are  simply  inevitable  motions,  so  far  as 
the  sinner's  will  is  concerned.     In  rejoinder  we  would 
say  that  the  only  motus  of  that  kind  in  the  process  are  the 
first  proffers  of  grace  through  the  Call.     Of  course,  the 
sinner  must  first  hear  the  Word  of  God.    Just  how  long 
such  motus  are  continued  by  our  heavenly  Father  we 
need  not  try  to  determine;  for  He  alone  knows  how  to 
fit  His  overtures  to  every  person's  case.     From  the  very 
nature  of  the  process  there  must  be  such  initial  move- 
ments on  God's  part:  if  God  did  not  first  give  the  Call, 
no  one  would  ever  be  saved;  no  one  would  ever  know 
about   Christ   and   His    redemption.      "How    shall   they 
believe  on  Him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard?"     God 
always  initiates  the  process:     "Ye  have  not  chosen  me, 
but  I  have  chosen  you"  (Matt.  15:16)  ;  "We  love  Him, 
because  He  first  loved  us"  (1  John  4:19;  also  John  3:16). 
Yes,  the  initiative  in  salvation  always  comes  from  God. 
But  after  God,  by  His  gracious  Call  and  Illumination, 
has  sufficiently  aroused  the  sinner  to  produce  conviction 
and  the  sense  of  responsibility,  the  motus  invitabiles  must 
cease,    and    acts    involving   man's    moral    and    spiritual 
freedom  must  begin  and  continue.     Not  to  be  outdone 
by  our  learned  friends  in  the  use  of  scholastic  terms, 
these  acts  might  be  called  motus  morales  et  voluntarii. 
An  instance  of  treating  an  opponent  unfairly  and 


100  Election  and  Conversion 

imposing  upon  him  views  that  he  does  not  hold,  is  found 
on  page  123,  where  a  quotation  is  made  from  the  Strass- 
burg  Faculty  as  follows :  "Does  not  God  on  His  part 
grant  that  we  willf  Does  He  merely  grant  that  we  are  able 
to  will,  able  to  convert  ourselves,  able  to  believe?" 

We  wonder  whether  there  ever  has  been  a  Lutheran 
who  said  or  thought  that  we  poor,  undone  sinners  are 
"able  to  convert  ourselves?"  By  running  that  damaging 
phrase  into  the  sentence,  the  writers  did  not  fairly  repre- 
sent their  opponents'  view.  God  certainly  does  confer 
the  ability  to  will  and  believe.  Surely  He  does  not  do  our 
willing  and  believing  for  us,  any  more  than  He  does  our 
walking,  breathing,  eating,  or  even  our  thinking  for  us ; 
but  that  is  continents  away  from  saying  that  a  man  is  able 
to  convert  himself.  To  zvill  and  believe  belong  to  a  differ- 
ent category  from  to  convert,  for  God  enables  willing  and 
believing,  and  then  men  must  use  the  powers  conferred ; 
but  as  for  converting,  God  alone  can  and  must  do  that, 
just  as  He  alone  must  forgive  and  save.  We  have  con- 
tended all  along  that,  through  prevenient  grace,  the 
sinner  is  simply  enabled  to  let  God  convert  and  save  him. 

"Then,"  we  fancy  Dr.  Pieper  will  reply,  "it  all 
depends,  after  all,  on  man's  choice."  Not  so.  It  all 
depends  on  God's  grace  and  power,  and,  of  course,  on  His 
eternal  f oreordination ;  for  the  whole  process  of  salva- 
tion must  have  been  predetermined  in  eternity.  But  there 
must  come  a  time  in  the  process  when  God's  Spirit  en- 
ables the  sinner  to  choose  to  let  himself  be  saved  or  not, 
as  the  Scripture  teaches :  "Choose  ye  this  day  whom  ye 
will  serve"  (Josh.  24:15)  ;  "How  long  halt  ye  between 
two  opinions?  If  God  be  God,  follow  Him;  if  Baal, 
then  follow  him"  (1  Kings  18:21,  spoken  to  unregenerate 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  101 

men).  If  such  a  moment  of  option  does  not  come  to 
the  sinner  before  conversion,  then  conversion  is  forced 
upon  him.  Will  the  theologian,  or,  for  that  matter,  any 
one  else,  try  to  think  of  a  man  being  converted  without 
his  consent  or  against  his  consent?  What  kind  of  a  con- 
version would  that  be?  Figure  it  out  as  you  will,  there 
must  be  a  point,  prior  to  conversion,  when  God  deals 
with  the  sinner's  will,  which  He  has  called  into  action. 
From  a  psychological  view-point  this  must  be  true ;  for 
God's  Call  and  Illumination  give  the  sinner  the  knowledge 
of  sin  and  salvation,  as  the  Missourians  themselves 
admit;  so,  as  the  mind  is  a  unit,  the  cognising  power 
could  not  be  called  into  action  without  producing  some 
effect  upon  the  susceptibility  and  the  will.  If  this  is  not 
true,  God  acts  contrary  to  the  psychical  laws  which  He 
Himself  has  foreordained  and  established. 

A  few  more  observations  are  needed  to  complete 
this  part  of  the  subject.  If  Missouri  means  by  conver- 
sion the  whole  process  of  grace  from  awakening  to  justi- 
fication, she  should  say  so  positively  and  clearly,  and 
should  not  insist  on  actus  praeparatorii;  then  we  could 
agree  with  her ;  then,  too,  much  confusion  and  con- 
troversy would  be  avoided  in  the  Church.  That  really 
is  what  should  be  called  conversion  {conversio,  a  com- 
plete turning),  while  the  actual  bestowal  of  the  new  life 
and  of  faith  should  be  called  regeneration  (from 
regenerare,  to  beget  again).  In  that  case,  however, 
Missouri  should  not  call  conversion  instantaneous. 
Really  we  have  sometimes  suspected  that  what  the  rest 
of  us  term  the  Call  and  the  Illumination,  the  Missouri 
advocates  call  conversion ;  for  when  Dr.  Pieper  on  page 
111  speaks  about  the  experience  of  conversion  he  makes 


102  Election  and  Conversion 

it  such  a  gentle,  zephyr-like  transaction  that  one  wonders 
what  all  the  theological  agitation  is  about.  Conversion, 
he  says,  occurs  "in  a  way  imperceptible  to  human  feeling, 
and  so  divinely  gentle  that  few  converted  persons  are 
able  to  state  the  hour  of  their  conversion."  Beautiful, 
indeed !  While  many  adults  are  not  converted  in  that 
quiet  way,  many  are,  and  almost  all  properly  reared 
children  of  Christian  parents  are.  It  is  the  normal  way. 
But,  somehow,  it  does  not  comport  well  with  Missouri's 
position,  for  during  the  introductory  stage  (praeparatio) 
the  "dead"  sinner  seems  to  be  more  active,  alive  and 
conscious  of  what  is  transpiring  than  he  is  in  the  moment 
of  actual  conversion.     Is  our  debate  a  logomachy? 

Our  next  paragraph  is  about  a  good  will,  a  free 
will,  a  will  disenthralled  to  the  extent  needed  at  the 
given  moment  in  God's  economy  of  grace.  Missouri 
always  treats  the  will  as  if  it  were  a  kind  of  material 
thing  or  a  machine.  Therefore,  in  the  interest  of 
Christian  ethics,  we  desire  to  say  that  a  free  will  is  not 
something  that  is  pulled  down  by  force  on  one  side  or 
the  other,  but  that  is  placed  in  equilibrium,  so  that  it  can 
elect  for  itself.  That  was  the  will  in  liberty  with 
which  Adam  and  Eve  were  originally  endowed.  Now, 
in  the  process  of  divine  mercy  and  grace  in  restoring 
man  to  his  original  estate,  there  must  come  moments 
when  man  is  capable  of  exercising  this  original  endue- 
ment.  It  is  restored  sola  gratia  just  as  it  was  originally 
bestowed  sola  gratia. 

There  is  one  significant  phrase  in  the  Madison 
Agreement  of  the  Norwegians  to  which  Dr.  Pieper 
objects.  It  is  in  Sec.  4  (page  8)  where  the  Norwegians 
say:     "In  other  words,  we  reject  every  doctrine  which 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  103 

.  .  .  would  weaken  man's  sense  of  responsibility  in  re- 
spect of  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  God's  grace." 
So  alert  is  Dr.  Pieper  constantly  in  his  defense  of  his 
favorite  doctrines  that  he  scents  danger  here.  There 
might  be  the  least  hint  of  Synergism  in  such  language. 
He  says  (page  35)  :  "The  phrase,  'feeling  of  responsi- 
bility over  against*  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  grace,' 
creates  the  impression  as  if  there  existed  in  man  before 
his  conversion  a  condition  or  moment  of  time  in  which 
he  may  decide,  as  well  whether  he  will  accept,  as  whether 
he  will  reject,  the  grace  offered  him." 

Do  our  Missouri  brethren  ever  preach  the  gospel 
to  the  unconverted?  If  they  do,  do  they  tell  them  they 
have  and  can  have  no  "feeling  of  responsibility"  in  re- 
gard to  the  salvation  offered  them?  If  they  do  tell  them 
this,  how  can  they  ever  expect  any  sinner  to  repent  and 
come  to  God?  If  they  do  not  tell  them  this  frankly, 
but  talk  to  them  as  if  they  were  responsible  beings  since 
they  have  heard  the  gospel,  then  the  Missourians  are 
not  preaching  their  own  doctrine,  but  another  doctrine. 
How  do  they  preach  to  the  unconverted,  anyway?  If 
the  preaching  of  the  law  to  the  unsaved  produces  con- 
viction— and  surely  that  is  its  office — then  it  must  stir 
a  "feeling  of  responsibility."  Why  do  our  brethren 
preach  the  law?  And  when  they  do  preach  it  to  the 
unconverted,  do  they  expect  it  to  produce  no  other  effect 
than  that  of  an  impact  on  a  rubber  ball  or  of  an  electric 
shock  on  a  dead  body?  You  cannot  build  an  operative 
Church  on  this  doctrine  of  election.     It  is  too  academic 


*The  phrase  "over  against"  is  not  used  in  the  Madison 
Agreement,  but  "in  respect  of."  This  is  perhaps  only  a  technical 
oversight. 


104  Election  and  Conversion 

and  scholastic.  It  is  not  a  practical  or  a  preachable 
theology.  It  may  be  a  theology  for  the  professor's  chair, 
but  not  for  the  practical  preacher  and  pastor  out  in  the 
field,  dealing  with  living,  thinking,  sinning  men  and 
women.  Even  most  of  the  Presbyterian  ministers  with 
whom  we  have  conversed  have  accepted  election  in  view 
of  faith  persevered  in  to  the  end  of  life.  They  could  not 
make  the  theology  of  their  creed  applicatory  in  their 
work. 

Oh,  brethren,  we  must  have  a  theology  that  we  can 
preach  to  all  classes  of  men  and  that  will  make  a  truthful 
appeal  to  them.  Again  we  must  raise  the  relevant 
question,  Can  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  accept 
the  electionist  theology  as  the  only  basis  of  union? 

Not  to  inject  too  much  of  the  personal  element  into 
this  discussion,  the  present  writer,  who  was  a  pastor  for 
many  years,  was  blessed  of  God  with  the  joy  of  winning 
many  unconverted  persons  to  Christ.  He  had  a  theology 
that  he  could  preach,  and  preach  with  all  his  heart ;  and 
he  always  tried  to  arouse  a  feeling  of  responsibility  in 
the  sinner's  mind,  telling  him  that  he  could  have  salva- 
tion if  he  would,  and  that,  if  he  did  not,  it  would  be 
his  own  fault.  Whether  this  was  the  correct  theology 
or  not,  it  zvorked.  Today  there  are  many  faithful  and 
loyal  Lutherans  in  the  churches  he  served  that  were 
brought  to  Christ  by  that  kind  of  preaching.  Do  we 
want  to  accept  a  system  of  dogmatics  that  we  cannot 
preach  right  out  with  utter  frankness  and  fullness  to  all 
classes  of  people?  And,  above  all,  do  we  want  to  make 
such  a  system  the  basis  of  union? 

And  where  did  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  try  to  posit 
the  "feeling  of  responsibility?"     Precisely  with  the  un- 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  105 

converted  people  to  whom  He  preached.  He  said  to  the 
Pharisees :  "Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  may  have 
life."  Was  He  not  trying  to  stir  a  "feeling  of  re- 
sponsibility" in  them,  or  was  he  simply  trying  to  make 
indentations  on  rubber  balls?  Our  Lord  severely  up- 
braided the  cities  of  Galilee,  Chorazin,  Capernaum  and 
Bethsaida,  saying  it  would  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre, 
Sidon  and  Sodom  than  for  them  in  the  day  of  judgment 
(Matt.  11  :20-24).  And  why  this  stern  rebuke?  Because 
of  the  mighty  works  He  had  done  among  them.  Was 
He  not  fixing  the  responsibility  upon  those  sinners  to 
whom  He  was  preaching?  The  fact  is,  He  was  making 
their  own  choice  the  very  thing  that  determined  their 
eternal  destiny.  And  remember  they  were  unconverted 
sinners,  too.  Why,  brethren,  every  command  of  God, 
every  precept,  every  invitation,  every  threat  of  punish- 
ment— every  one  connotes  human  responsibility.  When 
Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  accused  his  hearers  of 
their  wickedness  in  having  crucified  Jesus,  he  was  trying 
to  stir  within  them  the  "feeling  of  responsibility;"  and  he 
succeeded,  too,  for  they  "were  pricked  in  their  heart,"  and 
cried  out,  "Brethren,  what  shall  we  do?"  When  Isaiah 
said :  "Come  now,  saith  the  Lord,  and  let  us  reason  to- 
gether; though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,"  he  was  trying  to 
make  those  sinners  conscious  of  their  "responsibility."  So 
we  hope  the  Norwegian  brethren  will  retain  the  afore- 
said clause. 

If  there  is  no  "condition  or  moment"  before  con- 
version when  the  sinner  can  decide  whether  he  will  let 
God  save  him  or  not,  then,  if  he  is  converted,  he  must 
be  converted  by  force,  just  as  we  have  proved  again  and 
again.     Such  a  theology  makes  all  the  gracious  invita- 


106  Election  and  Conversion 

tions  of  the  Bible  to  the  unconverted  nugatory,  not  to 
say  insincere.  Again,  this  idea  that  sinners  before  con- 
version have  no  responsibility,  and  even  no  feeling  of 
responsibility,  is  not  true  to  the  facts  of  every-day  ex- 
perience, for  thousands  of  them  do  have  that  feeling, 
as  you  will  discover  if  you  have  a  heart-to-heart  talk 
with  them.  Worst  of  all,  these  stiff,  immobile,  pro- 
crustean  doctrines  of  election  and  conversion  would 
logically  lead  to  fatalism;  also  the  destruction  of  all 
sense  of  moral  obligation  on  the  part  of  unconverted 
people.  What  state  of  society  would  that  bring  about? 
The  saving  feature  about  the  whole  matter  is  that  neither 
the  Missourians  nor  the  Calvinists  consistently  push  their 
logic  to  the  fatal  conclusion.  In  every-day  practice  they 
treat  sinners  just  as  if  they  were  responsible  human 
beings.  The  conclusion  is  that  they  have  a  theology  that 
is  not  practical,  but  theoretical,  academic  and  speculative. 
Another  difficulty  about  this  peculiar  doctrine  of 
conversion  and  election  is  this:  In  the  first  place, 
Missouri  teaches  that  unsaved  sinners  are  condemned 
solely  through  their  own  fault;  in  other  words,  it  is 
their  own  fault  that  they  are  non-elect;  yet  she  teaches, 
in  the  next  breath,  that  they  could  not  do  otherwise 
than  they  do,  even  though  God  calls  them  to  repentance. 
Then  how  can  the  blame  be  theirs?  They  could  not  do 
otherwise  than  they  do.  If  God  calls  them,  and  they 
can  only  resist,  and  God  does  not  even  make  them  will- 
ing to  allow  themselves  to  be  saved,  then  God  fails  to 
make  the  call  effectual  in  their  case,  while  He  does  make 
it  effectual  in  the  case  of  the  elect.  Then  who  is  to 
blame  if  the  non-elect  are  not  saved?  Of  course, 
Missouri  will  say,  "Right  there  is  the  mystery!"     But  it 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  107 

is  a  mystery  created  by  Missouri,  not  by  the  Bible.  The 
Bible  says  in  ringing  tones,  "Whosoever  will !  who- 
soever will !" 

Our  friends  may  object  to  having  this  remorseless 
logic  applied  to  their  theology ;  but  we  reply  that  men 
will  think ;  you  cannot  prevent  that ;  and  if  theologians 
will  take  an  inconsistent  position,  they  cannot  blame 
thinking  men  for  drawing  the  logical  conclusions  from 
their  premises.  We  challenge  any  gospel  preacher  to 
preach  this  doctrine  of  the  irresponsibility  of  the  sinner 
to  the  sinner  himself !  For  our  part,  we  do  not  care  for 
a  system  of  theology  that  you  must  keep  in  the  class- 
room, but  dare  not  proclaim  from  the  house-top. 

All  people  intuitively  think  and  speak  of  men  as 
free  moral  agents.  An  old  Presbyterian  farmer  was 
once  declaring  stoutly  that  he  believed  in  the  genuine 
old-fashioned  doctrine  of  election.  Some  one  asked  him 
why  it  was,  then,  that  so  many  people  are  not  elected. 
He  replied :  "Have  you  ever  known  a  person  to  be 
elected  who  refused  to  be  a  candidate?"  He  simply 
could  not  be  consistent  with  his  theory.  A  well-known 
Presbyterian  divine,  now  gone  to  his  reward,  was  wont 
to  say:  "I  believe  in  the  perseverance  of  saints — if  the 
saints  persevere !"  All  men  who  are  not  in  the  thrall  of 
a  theory  think  and  act  in  that  practical  way.  We  be- 
lieve in  both  a  theology  and  philosophy  that  can  be  lived 
and  applied.  The  theology  of  the  Bible  is  just  such  a 
theology.  In  some  places  it  properly  emphasizes  God's 
sovereign  rule ;  at  other  places  man's  free  moral  agency 
and  responsibility.  Both  principles  are  true,  and  there 
is  no  conflict  between  them.  Indeed,  it  magnifies  the 
power  and  glory  of  God  to  know  that  He  is  so  great 


108  Election  and  Conversion 

and  omniscient  that  He  can  make  free  agents  and  yet 
preserve  His  perfect  rulership.  If  He  could  not  do  that, 
He  would  not  be  infinite  in  wisdom  and  power. 

A  mistake  that  Concordia  makes  is  to  try  to  prove,  by 
a  dialectical  process,  that  their  doctrine  of  election  gives 
to  believers  assurance  of  final  salvation,  while  the  oppos- 
ing doctrine  leaves  them  in  uncertainty.  Here  we  believe 
there  has  been  some  error  on  both  sides,  or,  perhaps,  lack 
of  clearness.  Such  a  thing  as  absolute  and  unconditional 
assurance  of  final  salvation  is  not  taught  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  Such  assurance  would  lead  to  carnal  secur- 
ity. There  would  then  be  no  need  for  Christ  to  say: 
"Watch  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation ;"  "What 
I  say  unto  you  I  say  unto  all,  Watch ;"  "Abide  in  me,  and 
I  in  you;"  "If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as 
a  branch  and  is  withered."  Other  warnings  are :  "Let 
him  that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall;" 
"Examine  yourselves,  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith ;" 
"Blessed  is  the  man  that  endureth  temptation ;"  "Be  thou 
faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  a  crown  of  life." 
God's  way  is  right.  He  gives  us  enough  assurance  to 
keep  us  from  worry  and  anxiety,  yet  not  so  much  as  to 
cause  us  to  be  "at  ease  in  Zion."  Even  Paul  expressed 
some  concern  for  his  final  salvation  (1  Cor.  9:27)  :  "But 
I  buffet  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  bondage :  lest  by  any 
means,  after  that  I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself 
should  be  rejected." 

The  Missouri  position  can  never  give  unconditional 
assurance,  for  no  one  can  be  sure  in  this  life  just  what 
took  place  in  the  counsels  of  eternity  (unless  God  re- 
veals it  in  time,  and  Missouri  holds  that  he  has  not  made 
such  a  revelation  respecting  election).     True,  it  might 


Preparatory  Acts  of  Grace  109 

be  said,  if  a  man  has  accepted  Christ  as  his  Lord  and 
Redeemer,  that  ought  to  be  a  sure  token  of  his  election. 
Ah !  the  trouble  is,  so  many  believe  on  Christ  for  a  time, 
then  lose  their  faith,  and  so  do  not  persevere  to  the  end. 
So  faith  in  Christ  is  not,  after  all,  a  sure  criterion  of 
election  unto  eternal  life.  Anyway,  if  election  is  a  closed 
secret  with  God,  no  one  can  ever  know  until  he  dies 
and  goes  to  heaven  whether  he  has  been  elected  or  not. 

No  less  can  the  advocates  of  election  intuitu  fidei 
give  absolute  certitude  of  final  perseverance  and  salva- 
tion. Why?  Because  the  believer  may  fail  to  keep  on 
to  the  end.  Many  converted  persons  have  backslidden. 
Even  Missouri  does  not  hold  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine, 
"once  in  grace  always  in  grace." 

So  there  is  small  need  of  bandying  argument  on  this 
point.  For  our  part,  we  believe  the  advantage  lies  on 
the  side  of  the  intuitu  fidei  doctrine.  It  will  prove  a 
spur  to  continuance  in  faith,  whereas  the  Missouri 
doctrine,  if  pushed  to  its  conclusion,  would  be  likely  to 
lead  either  to  false  security  or  to  despair.  We  would 
state  our  position  in  this  way:  In  view  of  all  the  peace, 
comfort  and  joy  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  of  the  darkness 
and  sorrow  of  a  life  of  sin  and  doubt;  of  the  many 
precious  promises  of  eternal  bliss  to  those  who  are  faith- 
ful to  the  end ;  of  the  many  assurances  that  God  will 
be  faithful  to  his  part  of  the  baptismal  covenant ;  that 
He  will  not,  if  we  trust  Him,  suffer  us  to  be  tempted 
above  our  ability ;  that  both  Christ  and  the  Father  will 
hold  us  in  their  all-powerful  hands — in  view,  we  say, 
of  all  these  things,  there  surely  is  small  inducement  for 
believers  ever  to  desire  to  turn  back  to  "the  beggary 
elements   of   the   world."      Should   they   give   up   their 


110  Election  and  Conversion 

birthright,  it  would  be  against  every  incentive  that 
heaven  can  place  before  them.  If  God-in-Christ  holds 
us  in  His  hands,  so  that  no  enemy  can  pluck  us  from 
His  grasp,  it  certainly  would  be  very  foolish  for  us  to 
want  to  squirm  out  of  His  gracious  and  omnipotent 
protection.  If  we  did  so,  we  would  deserve  no  further 
consideration  at  His  hands.  We  confess  that  we  feel 
more  secure  with  such  assurance  than  we  would  if  we 
thought  a  mysterious  decree  were  hanging  over  us.  At 
the  same  time,  we  would  have  more  heart  to  persevere 
in  faith.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  the  believer  is  immune 
from  anxiety;  on  the  other,  he  is  saved  from  carnal 
security. 


IX 

MISSOURI'S    FAVORITE    SCRIPTURE 
PASSAGES 

A  PLEASANT  privilege  is  now  ours — that  of 
examining  our  Missouri  brethren's  favorite  pass- 
ages of  Scripture  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  election. 
We  say  a  "privilege,"  for  the  study  of  God's  Word  is 
the  greatest  delight.  After  all  our  reasoning,  we  must 
finally  decide  according  to  God's  holy  oracles;  they  are 
the  last  court  of  appeal.  "To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony! if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  surely 
there  is  no  morning  for  them"  (Isa.  8:20).  In  this 
controversy,  we  have  no  hesitancy  in  making  the  appeal 
to  the  Bible.  "The  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure, 
making  wise  the  simple.  .  .  .  The  commandment  of  the 
Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes'  (Ps.  19:7,  8). 

The  first  passage  to  claim  our  attention  is  Rom. 
8:28-30  (American  Revised  Version)  :  "And  we  know 
that  to  them  that  love  God  all  things  work  together  for 
good,  even  to  them  that  are  called  according  to  His 
purpose.  For  whom  He  foreknew.  He  also  foreordained 
to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  that  He  might 
be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren:  and  whom  He 
foreordained,  them  He  also  called :  and  whom  He  called, 
them  He  also  justified:  and  whom  He  justified,  them 
He  also  glorified." 

We  begin  with  verse  29:  "For  whom  He  fore- 
knew"  {oti  ous  proegno).     The  Greek  verb  here  used 


112  Election  and  Conversion 

is  a  form  of  pro-gigtwskein,  meaning,  by  its  very 
etymology,  to  know  before.  Dr.  Pieper  (page  7Z)  tries 
to  break  the  force  of  this  verb  by  identifying  it  with 
elect  or  predestinate.  Yet  elsewhere  in  his  book  he 
says  we  should  not  interpret  God's  Word,  but  take  it 
just  as  it  says.  Here,  however,  when  the  plain  words 
do  not  suit  his  theology,  he  gives  them  an  interpretation 
to  fit.  Thus  we  all  have  our  subjective  biasses;  we  are 
all  very  human.  But  we  fear  he  cannot  maintain  his 
interpretation.  It  would  make  Paul  a  very  poor 
rhetorician  for  him  to  say,  "For  whom  he  did  predes- 
tinate, them  He  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed,"  etc. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  who  inspired  Paul,  would  hardly  have 
moved  him  to  use  such  meaningless  tautology.  Besides, 
the  word  translated  "foreordain"  or  "predestinate"  is  pro- 
orisen  (second  "o"  is  omega),  aorist  of  pro-orizein,  to  de- 
termine beforehand.  So  Dr.  Pieper's  explication  is  in- 
admissible. Therefore,  taking  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
words  just  as  they  stand,  they  must  signify  that  God 
foreknew  certain  persons ;  foreknowing  them.  He  fore- 
ordained them  to  be  made  like  Christ — that  is,  to  be 
saved ;  having  thus  determined  in  eternity,  He  proceeded 
to  carry  out  the  decree  in  time  by  calling,  justifying  and 
glorifying  them.  What  needs  to  be  settled  now  is,  who 
are  the  persons  whom  He  foreknew? 

Let  us  remember  that  Paul  is  speaking  about  those 
who  are  saved  according  to  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Now, 
when  we  look  into  the  plan  of  redemption  as  it  has  been 
plainly  set  forth  in  the  Bible,  we  find  that  the  terms  or 
conditions  of  salvation  always  are  faith,  or  repentance 
and  faith  (John  3:14-21;  John  20:31;  Luke  13:3,  5; 
Acts  2:38;  3:19,  20;   13:38,  39;   16:31;  Rom.   5:1,  2, 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  113 

and  a  hundred  others).  Therefore,  if  in  time  He  has 
revealed  persevering  faith  to  be  the  condition  of  salva- 
tion, He  must  have  foreordained  it  to  be  so  from  eternity ; 
surely,  then,  for  those  who  He  foreknew  would  comply 
with  His  plainly  announced  condition.  He  would  make 
his  predetermination  effective.*  Thus  the  election  must 
have  been  "in  view  of  faith"  (of  course  persevered  in 
to  the  end).  And  remember,  "it  is  by  faith  that  it  might 
be  by  grace."  So  we  have  established  our  glorious  Luth- 
eran doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  connoting 
salvation  by  grace  alone.  And  all  has  been  in  accord 
with  God's  gracious  eternal  decree,  based  upon  His 
infinite  foresight  or  omniscience.  We  praise  God  for 
His  absolute  knowledge;  it  gives  a  solid  basis  for  all 
His  predeterminations,  so  that  none  of  them  can  mis- 
carry, and  yet  all  of  them  are  just,  right,  gracious  and 
kind. 

Here  it  is  proper  to  define  still  more  closely  the 
doctrine  of  election  "in  view  of  faith."  Perhaps  we 
should  have  made  the  proper  distinctions  earlier  in  this 
discussion.  The  phrase  is  liable  to  misunderstanding  from 
the  fact  that  it  seems  to  the  opponent  as  if  we  meant 
that  men  can  believe  on  Christ  before  they  are  con- 
verted. On  the  other  hand,  if  we  insist  that  faith  is  the 
gift  of  God,  and  is  an  ability  bestowed  simply  and  solely 
by  God's  grace  first  in  regeneration,  then  why  might  we 
not  just  as  Avell  fall  in  with  Missouri,  and  say  that  men 

*"What  is  the  force  of  the  words,  'who  from  eternity  He  fore- 
saw?'" .  .  Secondly,  that  Predestination  is  not  identical  with 
foreknowledge;  and,  thirdly,  that,  speaking  of  course  an- 
thropomorphically,  but  nevertheless  in  accordance  with  Holy 
Scripture,  and  therefore  with  absolute  truth,  foreknowledge  is 
not  dependent  upon  predestination,  but  predestination  upon  fore- 
knowledge"   (Jacobs,  ide7n,  page  555). 


114  Election  and  Conversion 

are  "elected  unto  faith  ?"  So  we  believe  that  some  of  the 
exponents  of  intuitu  fidei  have  not  made  quite  all  the 
distinctions  that  should  have  been  made  at  this  point. 
To  put  it  just  as  accurately  as  we  can,  we  would  say: 
God  has  elected  sinners  in  view  of  the  use  they  will  make 
of  divinely  imparted  and  enabled  freedom  at  every  point 
in  the  Order  of  Salvation,  from  the  first  moment  of  the 
Call  to  the  final  transfer  to  glory  in  heaven.  In  this 
process  faith  plays  a  large  and  determining  part;  yet 
it  does  not  enter  into  the  prevenient  acts,  but  is  im- 
planted in  regeneration.  Thus  intuitu  fidei  is  an  ex- 
pression that  can  be  retained  for  convenience,  if  it  is 
remembered  how  it  is  produced,  and  what  acts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  precede  it.  The  following  is  Dr.  Jacobs' 
carefully  phrased  and  finely  discriminating  definition  of 
"Predestination  or  Election"  ("A  Summary  of  the 
Christian  Faith,"  page  554)  : 

"It  is  the  eternal  decree,  purpose  or  decision  of 
God,  according  to  which,  out  of  pure  grace,  He  de- 
termined to  save,  out  of  the  fallen,  condemned  and 
helpless  human  race,  each  individual  who  He  foresaw 
from  eternity  would,  by  His  grace,  be  in  Christ  unto 
the  end  of  Hfe." 

We  must  go  a  step  farther.  All  who  hear  the  gospel 
Call  until  they  understand  its  heavenly  purport  have  a 
sufficient  chance  (gratia  sufficiens)  to  be  made  willing, 
to  know  that  God  will  convert  and  save  them  if  they 
will  let  Him.  There  God's  responsibility  ends  and  the 
sinner's  begins.  If  God  would  go  farther  than  to  awaken, 
convict,  enlighten  and  stir  the  sinner's  will  into  the 
ability  to  consent  to  being  saved,  He  would  force  sal- 
vation upon  him ;  which  God  will  never  do ;  for  He 
always  says,  "Whosoever  will,  let  him  come." 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  115 

Let  us  add  that  God  always  deals  with  man  as  man, 
that  is,  as  a  moral  agent,  not  as  a  block  or  machine  or 
an  irrational  animal.  Sometimes  we  get  the  impression 
— and  we  mean  it  kindly  and  only  as  a  suggestion — that 
our  Missouri  brethren  emphasize  God's  power  more  than 
they  do  His  grace.  Several  times  we  have  been  tempted 
to  think  that,  instead  of  sola  gratia,  they  ought  to  say 
sola  z>is. 

Now  we  come  to  the  crux  of  the  theologians  relative 
to  our  main  theme — Rom.  IX  to  XI  inclusive.  Here 
both  the  Calvinists  and  the  Missouri  Lutherans  find  their 
chief  Biblical  support  for  their  peculiar  views.  With 
both  alike  the  doctrine  of  election  as  drawn  from  this 
passage  is  regulative  in  their  theology,  everything  else 
being  made  to  conform;  everything  being  dealt  with 
from  this  view-point ;  whereas  the  rest  of  us  Lutherans, 
as  did  Paul  and  Luther,  make  justification  by  faith  the 
fundamental  and  regulating  principle.  Did  we  say  Paul? 
Yes,  for  in  this  very  epistle  he  first  treats  of  justifying 
faith,  then  of  election.*  In  the  examination  of  this 
crucial  passage  we  must  move  slowly  and  carefully,  and 
must  not  allow  preconceived  notions  to  exercise  an  undue 
influence  upon  us. 

First  of  all,  we  must  find  out  what  was  Paul's  main 
purpose  in  the  doctrinal  portion  of  this  epistle,  compris- 
ing, after  the  introduction,  the  first  eleven  chapters.  This 
purpose  is  to  prove  to  both  his  Jewish  and  Gentile 
readers  that  justification  comes  by  faith  alone,  or  rather. 


*In  this  respect  Dr.  Jacobs,  in  the  work  so  often  cited, 
follows  the  Pauline  and  Lutheran  order.  First  he  treats  the 
whole  order  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ,  then,  at  the 
close  of  his  work,  deals  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees. 


116  Election  and  Conversion 

by  grace  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  this  doctrine  and 
fact  he  maintains  over  against  the  error  that  justi- 
fication comes  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  and  works  of 
human  merit.  There  was  need  for  this  presentation,  for, 
on  the  one  hand,  there  were  Jews  who  insisted  on  the 
law ;  on  the  other,  Gentiles  who  believed  in  the  merit  of 
good  character  and  conduct.  His  polemic  is  presented 
in  good  homiletical  order.  After  stating  his  main  theme 
(1:16,  17),  where  he  declares  that  the  righteousness  of 
God  is  bestowed  through  faith,  he  deals  first  with  the 
heathen  world,  and  shows  that  it  is  altogether  steeped 
in  sin,  and  therefore  cannot  save  itself  (1:18-32); 
secondly,  he  shows  that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  on 
account  of  their  sins,  are  under  the  same  condemnation 
and  disability  (2:1-29);  thirdly,  he  turns  to  the  Jews, 
and,  by  a  most  clean-cut  argument,  shows  them  that, 
while  they  have  been  highly  favored  of  God  as  His 
chosen  people  and  in  being  entrusted  with  the  "oracles 
of  God,"  yet  they  cannot  be  saved  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  simply  because  they  are  too  much  in  the  bondage 
of  sin  to  keep  it  (chapters  3  and  4)  ;  then  comes  his 
matchless  argument  (chapters  5  to  8  inclusive)  for 
justification  by  faith  alone  as  opposed  to  all  work- 
righteousness,  whether  of  Jew  or  Gentile,  ending  with 
the  wonderful  apostrophe  to  saving  and  preserving  love 
in  the  concluding  verses  of  the  eighth  chapter. 

This  brings  us  to  chapters  9  to  11,  where  God's 
sovereignty  is  so  strongly  emphasized.  But  it  is  God's 
sovereignty  exercised  in  accordance  with  His  prede- 
termined order  of  salvation,  as  set  forth  in  the  previous 
chapters,  namely,  salvation  by  grace  through  faith.  If 
not,    Paul    would    be    a    very    inconsistent    writer    and 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  117 

theologian;  yet  he  was  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
What  does  he  mean  to  show  in  these  chapters?  The 
relation  between  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles;  that  both 
are  saved  by  grace  through  faith,  notwithstanding  God's 
varied  providential  dealings  with  them;  that  God's 
sovereign  will  and  grace  to  save  them  in  this  way  can- 
not be  frustrated  by  anything  that  man  can  do,  and 
that  for  carrying  out  this  sovereign  purpose  He  raises 
up  both  men  and  nations  by  a  special  dispensation  and 
exercise  of  His  power  and  grace.  That  this  is  the  gist 
and  point  of  his  whole  polemic  is  clearly  set  forth  in 
11:19-23,  where  it  is  said  that  the  Jews  (or  those  of 
them  who  rejected  Christ)  were  broken  ofif  "by  their 
unbelief,"  while  the  saved  Gentiles  stand  "by  their  faith" 
(11:20).  In  the  next  verses  he  teaches  that,  if  the 
Gentiles  continue  not  in  God's  goodness,  they  also  will 
"be  cut  off;"  but  if  the  Jews  "continue  not  in  their 
unbelief,"  they  shall  again  "be  grafted  in;  for  God  is 
able  to  graft  them  in  again."  Cannot  any  one  see  that 
Paul  is  logically  and  consistently  carrying  out  his  cardinal 
principle  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  showing 
that  all  God's  predeterminations  in  eternity  and  His 
providential  and  gracious  dealings  in  time  are  bent  on 
making  this  principle  effective? 

Now,  what  is  the  exact  idea  of  election  so  power- 
fully presented  in  these  chapters?  It  is  that  God  pre- 
destines and  elects  and  raises  up  certain  nations  and 
representative  individuals  to  carry  out  His  sovereign 
plans,  His  purpose  to  save  by  grace  through  faith,  be- 
cause that  is  the  only  right  way  to  save  the  race.  We 
maintain,  therefore,  that  in  these  chapters  no  reference 
is  made  to  the  unconditional  election  of  individuals  unto 


118  Election  and  Conversion 

eternal  salvation  or  unto  eternal  reprobation.  For  that 
Paul  always  makes  conditional  on  faith.  That  God  does 
raise  up  certain  representative  individuals  to  be  the  in- 
struments of  His  sovereign  purposes,  who  can  doubt? 
There  were  Abraham,  Moses,  David,  Paul,  Luther.  And 
why  He  elected  these  men  and  not  others  for  their  great 
work,  who  knows?  That  He  also  elected  and  chose 
Israel  to  be  the  special  bearers  of  salvation  to  the  world, 
the  race  from  whom  Christ  should  come  according  to 
the  flesh,  admits  of  no  questioning.  Just  why  He  chose 
Israel  and  not  some  other  nation  we  are  willing  to  leave 
to  Him.  It  certainly  was  not  on  account  of  Israel's 
superior  "good  conduct."  Here  the  divine  Potter  had 
perfect  power  over  the  clay.  But  our  faith  is  simple 
enough,  since  God  has  saved  us  by  grace  through  faith, 
to  believe  that  He  elected  those  individuals  and  the 
Jewish  nation  for  a  wise  and  gracious  purpose,  and  not 
in  an  absolute  and  arbitrary  way.  God  has  His  in- 
scrutable methods  and  purposes,  for  His  ways  are  higher 
than  our  ways  and  His  thoughts  higher  than  our 
thoughts.  It  is  just  as  easy,  and  a  good  deal  more 
reasonable,  to  believe,  for  example,  that  He,  by  His 
divine  foresight,  knew  that  Abraham  would  be  the 
instrument  best  fitted  for  His  purpose,  and  therefore 
He  chose  him,  as  it  is  to  believe  that  He  did  just  as 
He  pleased  without  a  good  and  sufficient  reason,  and 
just  because  He  had  the  power ;  for  the  Scripture  teaches 
that  "by  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called,  obeyed  to 
go  out  unto  a  place,"  etc.  (Heb  11:8).  The  same 
principle  will  hold  in  respect  to  God's  other  agents  who 
were  raised  up  for  a  special  mission. 

Now,  with  Paul's  great  principle  in  mind — salvation 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  119 

by  grace  through  faith — let  us  seek  the  meaning  of  the 
most  difficult  sections.  In  9:6-9  Paul  teaches  that  not 
all  the  seed  of  Abraham  was  elected  to  be  the  bearers 
of  God's  saving  plan;  not  Ishmael,  a  child  of  the  flesh, 
but  Isaac,  the  child  of  promise,  whom  Abraham  and 
Sarah  looked  for  by  faith.  Beautiful!  Everything  is 
determined  and  wrought  out  along  God's  plan  of  salva- 
tion through  faith.  Then  there  is  the  case  of  Jacob  and 
Esau,  9:10-13,  which  we  will  give  in  the  beautiful  version 
of  the  Twentieth  Century  New  Testament  (in  this  place 
a  true  translation,  not  a  gloss)  :  'There  is  also  the  case 
of  Rebecca,  when  she  was  about  to  bear  children  to  our 
ancestor  Isaac.  For  in  order  that  the  purpose  of  God, 
working  through  selection,  might  not  fail — a  selection 
depending  not  on  obedience,  but  on  His  Call — Rebecca 
was  told,  before  her  children  were  born,  and  before 
they  had  done  anything  either  right  or  wrong,  that  'the 
elder  would  be  a  servant  to  the  younger.'  The  words  of 
Scripture  are,  T  loved  Jacob,  but  I  hated  Esau.'  " 

You  will  observe  that  this  version  does  not  tone 
down  the  election  part  at  all,  for  "selection"  must  mean 
the  same  thing.  Does  this  prove  that  God  unconditionally 
elected  Jacob  unto  salvation  and  passed  Esau  by?  Not 
at  all.  It  has  reference  solely  to  what  Paul  set  out  to 
show,  namely,  that  God  was  electing  the  one  who  would 
be  the  fitter  to  be  the  ancestor  of  the  people  of  God  and 
of  the  Christ  who  was  to  be  given  through  them.  Why 
do  we  say  this?  Because  if  it  refers  to  individual  salva- 
tion, then  Esau  must  have  been  lost,  and  that  simply 
because  he  was  not  elected,  and  we  have  no  evidence 
that  he  was  lost.  Moreover,  it  would  imply  that  all  of 
Esau's  descendants  must  have  been  lost,  for  of  course 


120  Election  and  Conversion 

these  two  men,  as  we  have  shown,  were  treated  as  the 
representatives  of  their  respective  posterities.  That 
God's  eternal  foresight  and  selection  were  correct  is 
verified  by  the  sequel,  for  Jacob  proved  to  be  by  far  the 
fitter  instrument  for  God's  redeeming  plan.  With  all 
his  faults,  he  was  spiritual,  he  had  visions  of  God,  and 
grew  more  spiritual  toward  the  end  of  his  life ;  while 
Esau  was  always  crass,  worldly  and  sensuous.  Just  try 
to  imagine  God's  having  chosen  Esau  instead  of  Jacob 
for  the  divine  purpose,  and  you  will  intuitively  see  how 
intolerable  is  the  thought.  Therefore,  even  in  choosing 
His  special  agents  to  carry  out  His  larger.  His  world- 
wide purpose.  He  does  not  elect  them  in  an  absolute  and 
arbitrary  way. 

With  reference  to  God's  loving  Jacob  and  hating 
Esau,  we  will  defer  to  Dr.  Jacobs  (Lutheran  Commen- 
tary, in  loco,  p.  190)  :  "The  word  hatred  here  does  not 
mean  to  dislike  or  abhor.  It  simply  expresses  the 
preference  shown  to  one  who  is  loved  when  his  claims 
or  interests  come  in  conflict  with  the  other  .  .  .  'When 
a  Hebrew  compares  a  less  with  a  greater  love,  he  is 
wont  to  call  the  former  hatred'  (Tholuck)."  References 
to  Gen.  29:30,  31;  Deut.  21:15. 

"That  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election" 
(Amer.  Rev.) — the  precise  order  here  cannot  be  de- 
termined from  the  Greek.  It  is,  iva  e  kaf  eklogen 
prothesis,  but  the  preposition  kata  may  be  translated 
"according  to"  or  "by  means  of"  (see  any  Greek  lexicon). 
Dr.  Jacobs  prefers  the  former,  and  thus  puts  "election 
first,  the  purpose  afterward,"  while  the  Twentieth  Cen- 
tury version  makes  it  "through."  We  think  the  latter 
the  more  simple  and  consistent,     for  surely  the  order 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  121 

in  every  mental  process  would  be,  the  purpose  first,  then 
the  election  of  the  means  for  carrying  out  the  purpose. 

The  next  passage  is  verses  14-16:  "What  shall  we 
say  then?  Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God?  God 
forbid.  For  He  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on 
whom  I  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom 
I  have  compassion.  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth, 
nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  hath  mercy." 

Let  us  remember  what  Paul  was  proving — that  God 
had  not  elected  the  Jews  on  account  of  any  work  or 
legal  righteousness ;  for  they  could  claim  no  such  merits ; 
therefore  in  their  self-righteousness  they  had  no  right  to 
pronounce  judgment  upon  God's  methods  and  ways.  So 
He  told  them  that  His  mercy  was  in  His  own  hands 
to  be  shown  as  He  pleased.  But  on  whom  does  He 
always  clearly  show  in  the  New  Testament  that  He  wills 
to  have  mercy?  Right  here  it  is,  in  another  writing  of 
Paul  (1  Tim.  1 :16)  :  "Howbeit  for  this  cause  I  obtained 
mercy  that  in  me  as  chief  might  Jesus  Christ  show  forth 
all  His  long-suffering,  for  an  ensample  of  them  that 
should  thereafter  believe  on  Him  unto  eternal  life." 
Hundreds  of  passages  to  the  same  effect  might  be  cited. 
Thus  we  interpret  Scripture  by  Scripture,  not  by  some 
subjective  theological  dogma.  "So  then  it  is  not  of  him 
that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that 
showeth  mercy."  Just  as  we  have  shown  all  along — 
God  is  the  enabling  source  of  all  good,  of  the  willing  and 
the  running.  But  remember  He  will  not  do  our  willing 
and  running  for  us,  after  He  has  conferred  the  ability 
upon  us  through  His  mercy  and  grace. 

Vs.  17,  18:  "In  Scripture  again  it  is  said  to 
Pharaoh :     Tt  was  for  this  very  purpose  that  I  raised 


122  Election  and  Conversion 

thee  to  the  throne,  to  show  my  power  by  my  dealings 
with  thee,  and  to  make  my  name  known  throughout  the 
world.'  So,  then,  where  God  wills  He  takes  pity,  and 
where  He  wills  He  hardens  the  heart." 

All  is  clear  if  our  minds  are  not  too  much  possessed 
by  the  idea  of  a  mysterious  unconditional  election.  It 
does  not  say  that  God  created  Pharaoh  for  the  purpose 
of  hardening  and  finally  condemning  him,  but  He 
"raised  him  up" — that  is,  gave  him  an  exalted  position 
in  the  world — in  order  that  He  might  show  His  power 
and  grace  through  him.  Suppose  God  foresaw  that 
Pharaoh  would  harden  his  own  heart  against  God  (the 
Old  Testament  says  five  times  that  he  did  this  before 
it  says  God  hardened  his  heart,  Ex.  7-9),  then  how  just 
it  would  be  to  lift  him  up  and  make  him  the  conspicuous 
instrument  through  whom  God  would  exhibit  His  power ! 
n  God  had  not  done  this,  we  never  would  have  had  the 
wonderful  history  of  God's  deliverance  of  Israel  from 
their  bondage  in  Egypt.  Why  God  raised  up  Pharaoh 
for  this  special  purpose,  and  not  some  other  great  ruler, 
we  leave  to  God  Himself.  We  may  some  time  see  that 
He  raised  up  every  great  man  for  some  special  purpose. 

We  should  remember,  too,  that,  such  is  God's 
economy  of  nature  and  grace,  that  what  is  intended  to 
soften  the  heart  actually  hardens  it,  if  God's  overtures 
are  rejected.  The  sun  melts  the  wax,  but  hardens  the 
clay.  This,  is  God's  law,  and  so  there  is  a  sense  in  which 
God  Himself  may  be  said  to  harden  men's  hearts.  Let 
us  bear  in  mind,  too,  that  in  this  place  Paul  is  not  deal- 
Aig  with  the  question  of  individual  election  to  salvation, 
but  with  such  conspicuous  personages  as  He  chooses  to 
effect  great  steps  and  epochs  in  His  scheme  of  redemp- 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  123 

tive  grace.  When  we  look  at  Pharaoh  in  this  way,  we 
can  readily  see  that  He  was  as  clay  in  the  hands  of 
God's  sovereign  power,  and,  all  unwittingly,  aided  in 
carrying  out  His  purpose,  just  as  Satan  and  Judas  did 
when  they  brought  about  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  No 
one  can  get  ahead  of  God,  or  balk  His  great  purposes, 
no  matter  how  much  he  may  abuse  his  free  moral  agency. 
This  is  the  great  comfort  of  elective  grace.  How  often 
in  times  of  trial  we  throw  ourselves  back  on  God's 
sovereignty ! 

Vs.  19-24:  "Perhaps  you  will  say  to  me:  'How 
can  any  one  still  be  blamed?  For  who  withstands  His 
purpose?'  I  might  rather  ask,  'Who  are  you  that  are 
arguing  with  God?'  Does  a  thing  which  a  man  has 
moulded  say  to  him  who  moulded  it,  'Why  did  you  make 
me  like  this?'  Has  not  the  potter  absolute  power  over 
his  clay,  so  that  out  of  the  same  lump  he  makes  one 
thing  for  better,  and  another  for  common,  use?  And 
what  if  God,  intending  to  reveal  His  displeasure  and 
make  His  power  known,  bore  most  patiently  with  the 
objects  of  His  displeasure,  though  they  were  fit  only 
to  be  destroyed,  so  as  to  make  known  His  surpassing 
glory  in  dealing  with  the  objects  of  His  mercy,  whom 
He  prepared  beforehand  for  glory,  and  whom  He  called 
— even  us — not  only  from  among  the  Jews,  but  from 
among  the  Gentiles  also !" 

It  does  not  say  that  the  potter  created  the  clay,  but 
simply  moulded  it ;  so  it  does  not  say  that  God  created 
the  "objects  of  His  displeasure,"  especially  not  for 
eternal  retribution ;  it  does  say  that  He  "bore  most 
patiently  with"  them,  "though  they  were  fit  only  to  be 
destroyed."     Here  it  is  all  plain.     God  bore  patiently 


124  Election  and  Conversion 

with  men  like  Pharaoh  and  others  for  awhile,  even  much 
longer  than  they  deserved,  until  He  saw  that  they  were 
reprobate ;  then  He  used  them  to  carry  out  His  redemp- 
tive purpose  in  saving  Israel,  and  to  show  His  glory  and 
power,  and  thus  make  them  the  bearers  of  salvation  in 
Christ.  Thus  God  makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise 
Him  (Ps.  76:10).  Even  Dr.  Pieper  justifies  God's 
dealing  with  Pharaoh,  saying  the  wicked  ruler  got  what 
he  deserved. 

We  have  now  dealt  with  the  difficult  passages  in 
these  chapters ;  and  yet  we  wonder  whether  it  was 
necessary  to  expend  so  much  labor  on  them,  when  Paul 
himself  afterward  makes  everything  plain  (9 :30-32)  : 
"What  shall  we  say  then?"  Note  his  own  answer: 
"That  the  Gentiles  who  followed  not  after  righteousness, 
attained  to  righteousness,  even  the  righteousness  which 
is  of  faith;  but  Israel,  following  after  a  law  of 
righteousness,  did  not  arrive  at  that  law.  Wherefore? 
because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith,  but  as  it  were,  by 
works.  They  stumbled  at  the  stone  of  stumbling,  even 
as  it  is  written :  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stone  of 
stumbling  and  a  rock  of  ofifence;  and  he  that  believeth 
on  Him  shall  not  be  put  to  shame."  There  it  all  is,  just 
as  clear  as  crystal — just  why  God  elects  some  and  does 
not  elect  others.  If  we  walk  in  this  rich  garden  of  truth 
in  the  light  of  justifying  faith,  which  God  has  revealed 
to  us  in  His  Word,  we  shall  not  walk  in  darkness.  If 
there  is  anything  which  God  has  not  revealed,  we  must 
search  for  it,  if  we  search  at  all,  in  the  light  revealed, 
not  the  reverse. 

If  it  were  necessary,  we  should  take  pleasure  in  going 
through  chapters  ten  and  eleven,  to  show  how  Paul  again 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  125 

and  again  maintains  that  Israel  was  rejected  for  a  time 
on  account  of  their  lack  of  faith,  while  many  of  the 
Gentiles  were  grafted  in  because  they  did  not  depend 
on  their  good  works,  but  solely  on  faith ;  but  we  simply 
invite  the  reader  to  examine  these  luminous  passages  for 
himself.  At  this  point  we  desire  to  quote  some  cogent 
and  fluent  sentences  from  one  of  the  best  theologians  of 
our  country  who  is  not  a  Lutheran — one  who  has  most 
stoutly  defended  the  evangelical  faith  against  the  "new" 
theology  and  the  rationalism  of  the  times — Dr.  Henry  C. 
Sheldon,  professor  of  theology  in  Boston  University. 
Our  selections  are  taken  from  his  work,  entitled  "A 
System  of  Christian  Doctrine."     He  says: 

"It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  idea  of  election 
or  predestination  is  awarded  considerable  prominence 
in  the  Scriptures.  It  could  not  have  been  otherwise,  if 
their  pages  were  to  reflect  the  vast  sweep  of  the  divine 
agency  necessarily  operative  in  founding  and  consum- 
mating the  kingdom  of  righteousness.  As  the  working 
out  of  this  supreme  enterprise  is  immeasurably  above 
creaturely  abilities,  it  would  be  a  glaring  incongruity  not 
to  represent  the  far-reaching  foresight  and  powerful 
direction  of  God  as  fundamental  to  it  all.  In  any 
reasonable  view  His  sovereignty,  considered  not  indeed 
as  arbitrariness,  but  as  wise  authority,  must  be  regarded 
as  determining  very  much  according  to  its  own  behests. 
The  existence  of  the  economy  of  grace  is  altogether  by 
the  choice  of  God,  not  of  men.  The  stages  of  that 
economy  from  the  first  overtures  to  sinners  to  their  in- 
vestment with  the  glory  of  a  supernatural  destiny,  are 
properly  characterized  as  His  choice.  In  the  adjustment 
of  nations  and  individuals  to  the  economy  His  agency 


126  Election  and  Conversion 

is  of  vast  consequence.  Free  will  in  man  does  not 
annul  the  necessity  of  providential  ordering  in  this  matter. 
To  get  His  gracious  purpose  effectively  before  the  con- 
templation of  man,  God  must  have  bearers  and  inter- 
preters of  the  same.  The  fittest  interpreters  for  a  given 
time  and  place  need  to  be  selected,  and  fitness  for  this 
vocation  is  not  independent  of  foregoing  discipline. 
Israel  could  never  have  fulfilled  its  mission  in  bringing 
the  divine  testimony  to  the  nations  without  special 
discipline.  Apart  from  the  light  shed  by  suitable  ante- 
cedents, the  world  would  not  have  known  what  to  make 
of  the  gospel  message  as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles. 

"Thus  the  divine  procedure  has  of  necessity  the 
appearance  of  selection  or  predestination,  and  is  such 
very  largely  in  fact.  The  conjunction  of  the  prepared 
subject  with  the  message  of  grace,  whatever  else  may 
contribute  thereto,  falls  pre-eminently  under  the  cate- 
gory of  divine  ordering. 

"But  how  is  the  divine  superintendence  managed? 
Is  it  so  managed  as  to  secure  the  fittest  instruments  for 
the  greatest  advance  of  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  salva- 
tion that  is  practicable  in  a  world  of  free  agents?  or  is 
it  the  sole  care  to  bring  into  the  divine  household  a 
certain  number,  unconditionally  chosen,  to  the  everlast- 
ing neglect  or  exclusion  of  all  others?  The  fault  of  the 
Augustinian  or  Calvinistic  predestinarian  is  that  he 
fastens  upon  this  ultra  sense  of  predestination,  and  reads 
it  into  the  Scriptures.  Not  content  with  the  majestic 
office  which  is  open  to  divine  sovereignty  in  ordering 
the  progress  of  the  dispensation  toward  the  grandest 
attainable  result,  he  will  have  it  that  the  absolute  choice 
of  God  fixes  the  eternal  destiny  of  all  souls." 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  127 

Let  us  investigate  another  crucial  passage,  Eph. 
1 :3-7;  but  do  not  stop  there;  read  on  through  to  12-14, 
19;  2:7-9;  3:11,  12.  As  the  sentences  in  the  other 
versions  are  very  long  and  complicated,  we  will  use  the 
Twentieth  Century  New  Testament  (a  few  glosses  we 
will  correct)  :  "Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Lord,  who  has  blessed  us  on  high  with  every 
spiritual  blessing  in  Christ:  for  He  chose  us  in  Him 
before  (pro)  the  foundation  of  the  world  (kosmos),  that 
we  might  be  holy  and  blameless  in  His  sight,  living  in 
the  spirit  of  love.  He  foreordained  us,  in  His  good  will 
toward  us,  to  be  adopted  as  sons  through  Jesus  Christ, 
and  so  to  enhance  that  glorious  manifestation  of  His 
loving-kindness  which  He  gave  us  in  the  Beloved ;  for  in 
Him  and  through  the  shedding  of  His  blood,  we  have 
redemption  in  the  pardon  of  our  offences  .  .  .  (Vs. 
11-13)  :  In  Him,  I  say,  for  by  our  union  with  Him  we 
became  God's  heritage,  having  been  foreordained  for 
this  in  the  intention  of  Him  who,  in  all  that  happens, 
is  carrying  out  His  own  fixed  purpose;  that  we  should 
enhance  His  glory — we  who  have  been  the  first  to  rest 
our  hopes  in  Christ  (Amer.  Rev.:  'we  who  had  before 
hoped  in  Christ').  And  you,  too,  having  heard  the  Word 
of  truth,  the  gospel  of  your  salvation,  and  having  also 
believed,  were  sealed  as  His  by  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
He  had  promised." 

The  italicised  words  in  verses  12  and  13  will  show 
that  God's  foreordination  and  choosing  were  all  made 
in  view  of  sinners  hoping  and  believing  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Note  also  verse  19. 

Eph.  3:9-12.  One  dogmatician,  in  order  to  prove 
his  election  doctrine,  quoted  only  this  much  of  verse  11 : 


128  Election  and  Conversion 

''According  to  the  eternal  purpose."  But  you  cannot 
establish  a  doctrine  by  such  fragmentary  citations  from 
the  Bible.  Using  the  Bible  in  that  way  simply  puts  a  club 
into  the  hands  of  the  rationalists  and  negative  critics. 
In  the  previous  verses  Paul  declares  that  the  "hidden 
mystery  has  now  been  made  known  through  the  gospel ;" 
then  he  adds :  "according  to  the  eternal  purpose  which 
He  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  In  whom  we 
have  boldness  and  access  in  confidence  through  our  faith 
in  Him."  The  "eternal  purpose"  simply  comes  back  to 
faith  once  more.     Paul  sticks  right  to  his  theme. 

Another  text  is  2  Tim.  1 :9 :  "Who  saved  us,  and 
called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works, 
but  according  to  His  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  were 
given  us  before  times  eternal"  (old  ver. :  "before  the 
world  began").  There  is  no  difficulty  here,  for  the  antith- 
esis is  not  between  God's  purpose  and  faith,  but  between 
His  purpose  and  works.  Here  He  says  God's  "purpose 
and  grace."  All  we  need  to  do  is  to  remember  that  Paul 
says,  "It  is  by  faith  that  it  might  be  by  grace,"  and 
then  we  shall  know  what  are  God's  eternal  purpose  and 
grace — simply  to  save  all  who  will  accept  salvation  by 
faith.  The  election  advocates  ought  always  to  read  the 
whole  passage,  and  not  to  treat  the  Bible  piece-meal ;  for 
here,  if  they  would  have  read  on  to  the  12th  verse,  they 
would  have  found  this  sublime  statement :  "For  I  know 
Him  whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  pursuaded  that  He 
is  able  to  guard  that  which  I  have  committed  unto  Him 
against  that  day." 

Consider  1  Pet.  1 :1,  2:  "Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  the  elect,  who  are  sojourners  .  .  .  according 
to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  in  sanctification 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  129 

of  the  Spirit,  imto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ."  The  apostle  even  says  here  the  "elect 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,"  which  shows 
that  God's  election  is  determined  by  His  foreknowledge. 
Then  He  could  have  foreknown  those  who  would  humble 
themselves  and  accept  His  grace  by  simple  faith  and 
self-surrender.  The  fact  is,  Peter  does  not  give  much 
support  to  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election,  for  he 
says  (2  Pet.  1  :10)  :  "Wherefore,  brethren,  give  the 
more  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure; 
for  if  ye  do  these  things,  ye  shall  never  stumble." 

Acts  13:48:  "And  as  the  Gentiles  heard  this,  they 
were  glad,  and  glorified  the  Word  of  God ;  and  as  many 
as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed." 

This  passage  is  quoted  with  much  confidence  by 
Missourians  and  Calvinists  alike ;  and  we  confess  that, 
when  we  first  read  it,  we  could  not  help  feeling  that 
here,  at  last,  was  one  passage  that  clearly  teaches  the 
divine  election  to  be  the  cause  and  antecedent  of  faith. 
And  we  decided  that,  if  this  were  true,  we  would  lay 
down  our  pen,  and  let  Dr.  Pieper's  book  go  unanswered. 
But  it  is  never  safe  to  jump  at  conclusions.  So  we  de- 
cided to  look  up  the  Greek  for  the  word  "ordained." 
Not  a  little  was  our  surprise  to  find  that  it  is  not  the 
word  used  in  Rom.  8:29,  30.  There  the  word  employed 
is  pro-oricein,  which  really  means  to  predetermine  or  to 
mark  out  beforehand ;  but  here  the  word  is  tetagmenoi, 
the  perfect  passive  participle  of  tassein,  which  has 
various  meanings;  but  our  classical  dictionary  (Liddell 
and  Scott)  does  not  give  "ordain"  or  "foreordain" 
among  them.  The  fact  is,  there  is  no  prefix  here  as 
there  is  in  pro-orizein.    Among  the  many  meanings  given 


130  Election  and  Conversion 

to  the  word  tassein  are  "to  arrange  or  put  in  order," 
"to  post,  station,"  "to  order,  command,  give  instructions," 
"to  tix,  settle;"  not  once  "to  ordain"  or  "foreordain." 
Our  New  Testament  dictionary  gives  only  the  following 
meanings  to  the  participle  used  in  this  verse:  "arranged, 
compact,  firm,  steady."  Now  let  us  give  a  literal  trans- 
lation of  this  part  of  the  verse,  putting  the  words  in  the 
precise  order  of  the  original:  "And  they  believed,  as 
many  as  were  {esan,  imperfect)  arranged,  settled,  or 
made  steady  unto  life  eternal."  Faith  comes  first,  and 
then  the  qualifying  clause,  and  the  meaning  might  easily 
be  that  God  had  made  them  steady  unto  eternal  life 
through  their  faith.  There  may  not  be  the  least  reference 
here  to  an  eternal  decree,  for  there  is  nothing  that 
so  steadies  the  soul  unto  eternal  life  as  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  "And  this  is  the  victory  that  hath  overcome  the 
world,  even  our  faith."  Again,  in  verse  46  we  see  why 
Paul  and  Barnabas  turned  to  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch  of 
Pisidia ;  for  they  said  to  the  unbelieving  Jews :  "It  was 
necessary  that  the  Word  of  God  should  first  be  spoken 
to  you.  Seeing  ye  thrust  it  from  you,  and  judge  your- 
selves unworthy  of  eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the 
Gentiles."  Now  we  do  not  insist  on  our  interpretation 
of  this  crucial  verse,  but  we  have  at  least  shown  that 
the  meaning  is  at  present  too  uncertain  for  theologians 
to  found  a  dogma  upon,  especially  one  that  rends  our 
Lutheran  Church  asunder. 

Next  we  advert  to  2  Tim.  2:18-21.  We  note  that  a 
Missouri  dogmatician,  in  trying  to  establish  his  favorite 
doctrine,  quotes  only  a  part  of  verse  19.  '  If  we  are 
going  to  learn  just  what  the  Bible  teaches,  we  must  cease 
this  "atomistic"  use  of  proof-texts.    Only  then  can  we  be 


Missouri  s  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  131 

workmen  who  "need  not  be  ashamed,  handling  aright  the 
Word  of  God."  We  believe  in  using  proof-texts  to 
establish  doctrines.  Only  rationalists,  negative  critics 
and  "new"  theology  men  scoff  at  their  use.  But  theo- 
logians must  use  them  correctly,  not  torture  them,  nor 
disjoin  them  from  their  contexts. 

Paul  was  here  speaking  of  two  errorists  of  his  time, 
Hymenaeus  and  Philetus :  "men  who  concerning  the 
truth  have  erred,  saying  that  the  resurrection  is  passed 
already,  and  overthrow  the  faith  of  some.  Howbeit  the 
tirm  foundation  of  God  standeth,  having  this  seal,  'The 
Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His,'  and,  'Let  every  one 
that  nameth  the  name  of  the  Lord  depart  from  iniquity.'  " 
See  how  the  two  parts  of  the  seal  complement  each  other, 
the  latter  showing  that  those  whom  the  Lord  knows  to 
be  His  are  those  who  depart  from  iniquity ;  and  who  are 
they?  All  those  who  surrender  to  God  and  let  Him 
save  them  by  faith,  as  is  taught  all  through  the  gospel. 
The  dogmatician  above  referred  to  should  have  read  on 
through  the  next  two  verses,  20,  21 :  "Now  in  a  great 
house  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  silver,  but 
also  of  wood  and  of  earth;  and  some  unto  honor  and 
some  unto  dishonor.  If  a  man  therefore  purge  himself 
from  these,  he  shall  be  a  vessel  unto  honor,  sanctified, 
meet  for  the  Master's  use,  prepared  unto  every  good 
work."  And  how  shall  he  purge  himself?  By  washing 
in  the  "fountain  opened  in  the  house  of  David  for  all 
sin  and  uncleanness."  "Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I 
shall  be  clean ;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow" 
(Ps.  51:7). 

Another  sample  of  fragmentary  Biblical  quotation 
occurs  when  predestinarians  cite  Mark  13:20  and  22,  and 


132  Election  and  Conversion 

even  omit  verse  21,  to  say  nothing  of  failing  to  refer  to 
the  entire  context.  We  will  refrain  from  that  method 
of  using  God's  Word ;  we  will  cite  enough  of  the  context 
to  show  the  exact  setting  and  relation,  beginning  with 
verse  14:  "But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  des- 
olation standing  where  he  ought  not  (let  him  that  readeth 
understand),  then  let  them  that  are  in  Judea  flee  unto 
the  mountains ;  and  let  him  that  is  on  the  house-top  not 
go  down  nor  enter  in  to  take  anything  out  of  his  house 
.  .  .  And  pray  ye  that  it  be  not  in  the  winter."  Re- 
markable that  even  God's  eternal  purpose  takes  into  ac- 
count man's  free  moral  agency  in  both  action  and  prayer ! 
Oh,  the  wonderful  omniscience  of  God !  Then  verse  19 
describes  the  great  tribulations  of  those  days,  followed 
by  verses  20-23 :  "And  except  the  Lord  had  shortened 
the  days,  no  flesh  would  have  been  saved ;  but  for  the 
elect's  sake,  whom  He  chose.  He  shortened  the  days. 
And  if  any  man  shall  say  unto  you,  'Lo,  here  is  Christ,' 
or,  'Lo,  there,'  believe  him  not;  for  there  shall  arise  false 
Christ  and  false  prophets,  and  shall  show  signs  and 
wonders,  that  they  may  lead  astray,  if  possible,  the  elect. 
But  take  ye  heed:  behold,  I  have  told  you  all  things  be- 
forehand." Then  in  verses  33-37 :  "Take  ye  heed ; 
watch  and  pray,  for  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is  .  .  . 
lest  coming  suddenly.  He  find  you  asleep.  And  what  I 
say  unto  you,  I  say  unto  all.  Watch !" 

Does  not  this  make  perfectly  clear  who  the  "elect" 
are?  Those  who  watch  and  pray,  who  will  not  believe 
the  false  Christs  and  prophets ;  then  God  will  keep  them 
amid  all  their  tribulations,  and  will  even  shorten  the  days 
so  that  their  faith  may  not  be  overborne.  A  most  beauti- 
ful commentary  this  on    1    Cor.    10:13:     "But   God   is 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  133 

faithful,  who  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  tempted  above 
that  ye  are  able;  but  will  with  the  temptation  make  also 
the  way  of  escape,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  endure  it." 
The  Bible  is  a  wonderful  harmony,  not  a  jumble  of  con- 
tradictions. With  God  there  is  no  decretum  absolutum, 
but  He  ordains  and  orders  everything  to  fit  into  the  con- 
stitution and  need  of  the  moral  agents  whom  He  has 
created  and  whom,  when  they  fall  into  sin.  He  graciously 
determines  to  save. 

The  great  passage,  John  6:43-51,  has  also  been  treated 
in  the  same  f  ragmental  way,  only  this  part  being  quoted : 
"No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  that  sent 
me  draw  him ;"  but  the  whole  passage  following  should 
be  read,  which  runs :  "And  I  will  laise  him  up  at  the 
last  day.  It  is  written  in  the  Prophets,  'And  they  shall 
all  be  taught  of  God.'  Every  one  that  hath  heard  from 
the  Father,  and  hath  learned,  cometh  unto  me.  Not  that 
any  man  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  He  that  is  from  God ; 
He  hath  seen  the  Father.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
he  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life  ...  if  any  man  shall 
eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever:  yea,  and  the 
bread  which  I  shall  give  is  my  flesh,  for  the  life  of  the 
world." 

It  is  plain  here  how  the  Father  draws  people  to 
Christ,  namely,  by  sending  His  Spirit  with  His  Call :  see 
"taught,"  "heard,"  "hath  learned,"  in  the  above  passage, 
leading  to  "believeth"  and  "shall  eat."  Remember,  too, 
the  Father  "draws;"  He  does  not  "push,"  "pull,"  or 
"force;"  just  as  Jesus  once  said:  "And  I,  if  I  be  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  will  drazv  all  men  unto  myself." 
Thanks  be  to  Christ  for  the  magnetic  power  of  His 
person  and  His  atoning  grace ! 

John  10:25-30,  which  we  will  not  treat  piece-meal. 


134  Election  and  Conversion 

as  is  too  often  done :  "And  Jesus  answered  them,  I 
told  you,  and  ye  believed  not;  the  works  that  I  do  in  my 
Father's  name,  these  bear  witness  of  me.  But  ye  believe 
not  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep."  Who  are  His 
sheep?  Verse  9  of  this  same  chapter:  "I  am  the  door; 
by  me,  if  any  man  enter  in,  he  shall  be  saved,  and  shall 
go  in  and  out,  and  shall  find  pasture."  Continuing,  verse 
27:  "My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and 
they  follow  me :  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life ;  and 
they  shall  never  perish,  and  no  one  shall  snatch  them 
out  of  my  hand.  My  Father,  who  hath  given  them  unto 
me,  is  greater  than  all ;  and  no  one  is  able  to  snatch  them 
out  of  the  Father's  hand.    I  and  the  Father  are  one." 

Thanks  be  to  God  for  His  gracious  and  eternal 
election !  For  thereby  He  makes  absolutely  secure  those 
who  put  their  trust  in  Him :  "I  know  Him  whom  I  have 
believed,  and  am  persuaded  that  He  is  able  to  keep  that 
which  I  have  committed  unto  Him  against  that  day" 
(2  Tim.  1 :14)  ;  "Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more 
than  conquerors  through  Him  that  loved  us"  (Rom. 
8:37). 

We  need  not  dwell  upon  Matt.  13:13-15  and  Mark 
4:10-12,  for  every  one  knows  that,  when  people  obsti- 
nately reject  the  overtures  of  God's  mercy  and  grace. 
He  will  harden  their  hearts,  dull  their  ears  and  blind 
their  eyes,  through  the  inevitable  law  of  moral  and 
spiritual  degeneration,  just  as  He  hardened  Pharaoh's 
heart  after  the  wicked  king  had  first  five  times  hardened 
his  own  heart.  We  think  now  we  have  dealt  with  all 
the  important  passages  relied  on  by  the  predestinarians. 
We  think  we  have  fought  shy  of  none  of  them;  if  we 
have,  it  was  an  oversight ;  and  we  have  tried  to  be  fair, 
first  to  God's  Word,  then  to  all  parties  concerned. 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  135 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  have  not  referred  a  great 
deal  to  either  the  Formula  of  Concord  or  the  dogma- 
ticians.  We  could  not  do  so  except  in  a  thorough-going 
way,  and  that  would  carry  us  far  beyond  the  proposed 
limits  of  this  work.  Besides,  they  are  quoted  on  both 
sides  by  Lutheran  theologians  of  great  ability,  who  ac- 
cept the  entire  Book  of  Concord  confessionally.  The 
matter  of  what  the  Confessions  teach  may  well  be  left 
to  such  eminent  theologians  as  Dr.  Pieper,  on  the  one 
side,  and  such  stalwart  and  capable  Lutherans  as  Drs. 
Stellhorn  and  Jacobs,  on  the  other.  The  General  Synod, 
of  which  the  writer  is  a  member,  esteems  very  highly 
the  Secondary  Symbols,  and  has  officially  declared  them 
to  be  "expositions  of  Lutheran  doctrine  of  great  his- 
torical and  interpretative  value"  (see  Minutes  of  1909, 
pages  57,  60,  and  of  1913,  page  126)  ;  yet  she  does  not 
receive  them  in  the  confessional  sense,  as  she  does  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  Therefore  we  are  all 
the  more  willing  to  leave  it  to  those  who  accept  them 
confessionally  to  settle  their  meaning.  Our  main  purpose 
in  this  thesis  has  been  to  discover  and  determine  the 
teaching  of  God's  inspired  Word  relative  to  the  questions 
at  issue. 

Personally,  we  appreciate  the  Formula  of  Concord 
more  than  we  can  ever  tell.  We  acknowledge  our  great 
indebtedness  to  it  in  helping  us  to  a  better  understanding 
of  more  than  one  Biblical  doctrine  and  more  than  one 
doctrine  of  our  Lutheran  system  of  faith.  Having 
studied  it  not  a  little,  we  would  modestly  suggest  a 
thorough  reading  of  its  illuminating  chapters  on  "The 
Righteousness  of  Faith  Before  God,"  for  there  will  be 
found  the  co-ordinating  doctrine  of  Lutheran  theology. 


136  Election  and  Conversion 

Some  Additional  Thoughts 

We  add  here  a  few  nuggets  of  thought  that  have 
come  to  our  mind  while  this  work  has  been  passing 
through  the  press,  and  which  therefore  could  not  be 
inserted  in  their  proper  places : 


All  God's  predeterminations  must  be  governed  by 
His  foreknowledge,  because  if  He  should  determine  any- 
thing without  perfect  prescience  of  all  possible  exigen- 
cies. He  might  make  a  mistake,  and  so  might  meet  with 
something  for  which  He  had  not  provided  and  which 
would  balk  His  will ;  but  since  His  foreknowledge  is  per- 
fect. He  is  able  to  make  provision  for  every  possible  con- 
tingency. This  being  so,  He  must  have  known  by  His 
inevitable  foresight  who  would  believe  in  Christ  to  the 
end,  and  could  therefore  elect  them  for  eternal  salvation, 
and  so  dispose  every  condition  and  circumstance  that 
nothing  but  their  own  free  will  would  prevent  their  sal- 
vation. This,  we  believe,  is  Paul's  idea  of  the  assurance 
and  comfort  of  election. 


The  Missouri  teaching  confuses  God's  general  and 
special  decrees.  By  His  general  decree  He  provides  sal- 
vation in  Christ  for  all  mankind,  and  freely  offers  it  to 
all,  while  by  His  special  decree  He  decides  actually 
to  bestow  salvation  upon  those  only  who  will  freely 
accept  the  benefits  offered.  The  two  decrees  blend 
in  an  ethical  harmony.  A  wealthy  man  might  set  aside  a 
fund  for  the  poor  of  his  community ;  but  he  might  very 
properly  stipulate  that  he  would  give  help  only  to  those 
who  would  accept  it. 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  137 

A  proper  distinction  should  be  made  in  the  will  of 
God.  In  some  cases  in  Scripture  it  means  His  desire; 
in  others  His  executed  purpose.  For  example,  when 
the  Bible  teaches  that  He  wills  that  all  men  shall  be 
saved  (2  Pet.  3:9),  it  clearly  means  that  His  earnest 
desire  is  that  all  shall  be  saved.  However,  when  it 
teaches  that  He  wills  to  save  those  who  will  accept  the 
proffered  salvation,  then  His  desire  becomes  an  absolute 
purpose  which  He  will  surely  execute.  We  are  wont 
to  use  the  word  "will"  in  the  same  twofold  way,  some- 
times to  express  only  our  desire,  at  other  times  to  ex- 
press our  determined  purpose.  Here  is  where  the  true 
Lutheran  view  of  individual  election  has  its  comfort  and 
value — we  know  that  God's  purpose  or  will  to  save 
those  who  believe  on  Christ  and  persevere  in  their  faith 
cannot  be  frustrated,  no  matter  who  or  what  assails 
them,  for  God  has  absolutely  willed  to  keep  them  safe 
so  long  as  they  abide  in  Him.  God's  will  of  purpose 
can  never  be  balked ;  His  will  of  desire  may  be  frus- 
trated by  the  wrong  choice  of  His  moral  agents,  because 
He  Himself  has  constituted  them  with  such  a  power. 


Anent  Missouri's  error  that  faith  is  a  matter  of 
merit,  note  this :  She  holds,  with  all  other  Lutherans, 
that  men  are  justified  solely  through  faith.  Now  if 
faith  is  a  matter  of  merit,  men  must  be  justified  on 
account  of  some  merit  of  their  own ;  which  is  the  direct 
opposite  of  Paul's  teaching  and  of  all  Lutheran  theology. 


When  our  Missouri  brethren  quote  Rom.  9:18: 
"So  then  He  hath  mercy  on  whom  He  will,  and  whom 
He  will  He  hardeneth,"  to  prove  that  God  elects  by  an 


138  Election  and  Conversion 

inscrutable  decree,  we  reply  that  the  Bible  teaches  clearly 
on  whom  He  wills  to  have  mercy,  namely,  those  who 
believe  on  Christ  (John  3:16;  Mark  16:16);  also  just 
as  clearly  whom  He  wills  to  harden,  namely,  such 
wicked  men  Hke  Pharaoh,  of  whom  the  Bible  says  five 
times  he  hardened  his  own  heart  before  it  says  God 
hardened  it. 

Let  it  always  be  understood  that  true  Lutheran  theo- 
logians never  teach  that  God  elected  any  one  on  account 
of  faith,  that  is,  because  of  any  merit  in  faith,  but  solely 
on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ  appropriated  by  faith. 
Faith  is  not  a  cause  of  election ;  it  is  a  condition  of 
election. 

While,  as  has  been  said,  we  refrain  from  using  the 
word  "conduct"  in  connection  with  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion, we  must  confess  that  Luther  himself  was  not  so 
chary.  After  saying  that  the  offer  of  the  gospel  is  for 
all,  he  adds :  "But  what  is  the  actual  result  ?  We  are 
told  afterward  in  the  gospel,  'Few  are  chosen ;'  few  so 
conduct  themselves  toward  the  gospel  that  God  is  well 
pleased  with  them ;  for  some  hear  it  and  do  not  esteem 
it;  some  hear  it,  and  do  not  hold  fast  to  it,  refusing  to 
do  or  suffer  anything  for  the  sake  of  it.  Some  hear  it, 
but  pay  more  attention  to  money  and  goods  and 
sensuous  pleasures.  But  that  does  not  please  God,  and 
He  does  not  take  pleasure  in  such  people.  That  is  what 
Christ  calls  not  to  be  'chosen,'  namely,  not  to  conduct 
oneself  so  that  God  could  take  pleasure  in  him."  Now 
note  whom  Luther  designates  as  the  elect :  "But  these 
are  the  elect,  in  whom  God  takes  pleasure,  who  diligently 
hear  the  gospel,  believe  in  Christ,  prove  their  faith  by 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  139 

their  fruits,  and  suffer  on  account  of  it  what  Providence 
has  ordained."  No  trouble  about  an  inscrutable  decree 
here.     We  fear  Missouri  cannot  claim  Luther. 


The  Missouri  Lutherans  may  ask :  "Why  cannot 
men  be  satisfied  merely  with  a  mysterious  divine  decree 
unto  individual  salvation  ?  Why  will  they  question 
further?"  The  reply  is  evident:  Eternal  salvation  and 
eternal  retribution  are  matters  of  the  greatest  and  most 
vital  personal  concern  to  each  individual.  Men  may 
readily  leave  some  things  to  God's  unrevealed  will,  but 
not  those  matters  that  pertain  to  their  everlasting  weal 
or  woe.  What  God  determined  in  eternity  should  be  the 
constitution  of  matter,  whether  it  should  be  made  up 
of  atoms  or  electrons  or  vortices,  or  of  one  or  sixty 
primary  elements — that  makes  very  little  difference  to 
any  of  us ;  it  is  merely  a  matter  of  scientific  curiosity ; 
but,  ah !  when  a  decree  involves  a  person's  eternal 
blessedness  or  suffering,  then  the  heart  desires  a  ''sure 
word  of  prophecy,"  a  clearly  revealed  purpose  and  plan. 
Thanks  be  to  God  He  has  not  left  us  to  grope  our  way 
in  darkness  here :  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;"  "The  wages  of  sin  are  death,  but  the 
gift  of  God  is  eternal  life." 


According  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  (which  the 
Missouri  Synod  accepts  confessionally),  election  is  not 
to  be  relegated  to  the  realm  of  mystery,  for  it  says : 
"This  (election)  is  not  to  be  investigated  in  the  secret 
counsel  of  God,  but  is  to  be  sought  in  the  Word  of 
God,  where  it  is  also  revealed"  (Jacobs'  edition,  p.  525). 
Also:     "But  the  true  judgment  concerning  predestina- 


140  Election  and  Conversion 

tion  must  be  learned  alone  from  the  holy  gospel  concern- 
ing Christ,  in  which  it  is  clearly  testified  that  'God  hath 
concluded  them  all  in  unbelief  that  He  might  have  mercy 
upon  all,'  and  that  *He  is  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance'  "  (p.  526). 
Again :  "In  Him  therefore  we  should  seek  the  eternal 
election  of  the  Father,  who,  in  His  eternal  divine  counsel, 
determined  that  He  would  save  no  one  except  those  who 
acknowledge  His  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  Him" 
(p.  527).  All  of  which  is  so  plain  we  wonder  any  one 
could  have  ever  misunderstood  it. 


It  has  been  objected  that  we  have  no  right  to  read 
anything  into  the  passage  (Rom.  8:29)  :  "For  whom  He 
foreknew,  He  also  foreordained  to  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  His  Son,"  etc.  We  are  forbidden,  so  say 
electionists,  to  read  it  thus :  "For  whom  He  foreknew 
would  have  perserving  faith  in  Christ."  Reply :  You 
must  supply  something.  If  you  do  not  read  it  as  above 
indicated,  you  must  read  it  thus :  "For  whom  He  fore- 
knew that  He  would  foreordain,  them  He  foreordained 
to  be  conformed,"  etc.,  which  would  be  tantamount  to 
saying:  "Whom  He  foreordained  them  He  foreor- 
dained ;"  and  that  would  make  Paul  a  vapid  writer.  It 
would  be  like  saying,  "What  I  know  I  know,"  or,  "What 
I  see  I  see."  If  Paul  meant  by  "foreknew"  "foreor- 
dained," why  did  he  not  use  the  right  word? 


"Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God." 
Then  when  God  in  eternity  reviewed  the  multitude  of 
sinners  still  without  faith,  how  could  any  of  them 
"please"  Him  so  well  that  He  elected  them  to  eternal 


Missouri's  Favorite  Scripture  Passages  141 

residence  with  Him,  without  foreseeing  that  they  would 
exercise  faith  ? 

With  their  strange,  mechanical  and  unpsychological 
ideas  of  free  will,  the  Concordia  dogmaticians  cannot 
understand  how  one  man  can,  by  his  own  option,  choose 
to  let  God  save  him,  while  another,  also  by  his  own 
option,  rejects  God's  mercy.  Hence  they  posit  a  mystery 
in  God's  eternal  decree  to  explain  the  difference.  With 
their  mechanical  and  unethical  views  of  faith,  from 
which  they  excise  every  element  of  freedom,  they  do 
not  see  how  one  man  can  (though  enabled  by  prevenient 
grace)  freely  and  savingly  believe  on  Christ,  while  an- 
other man,  even  though  similarly  called,  refuses  to  be- 
lieve. Hence  again  they  go  back  to  God's  eternal  counsel 
for  the  solution.  Yet  they  declare  that  he  is  not  "a  good 
theologian"  who  seeks  an  explanation!  And  the  strange 
thing  is,  they  try  to  account  for  a  psychological  mystery 
by  creating  a  theological  one.  Now  the  Bible  simply 
takes  the  practical,  common-sense  view  of  man's  psychi- 
cal constitution,  treats  him  as  a  moral  and  responsible 
agent,  and  offers  him  the  great  boon  of  salvation  on  the 
simple  terms  of  repentance  and  faith.  The  ability  to 
repent  and  believe  He  confers  as  soon  as  man,  after 
his  awakening,  is  wilHng  to  let  God  save  him  from  his 
dire  estate.  Just  so  we  who  accept  the  plain  and  simple 
gospel  preach  to  sinners  to  ''come  and  take  of  the  water 
of  life  freely,"  without  troubling  ourselves  about  the 
psychological  mysteries  involved;  just  as  we  see  without 
bothering  much  about  the  mysteries  of  optics,  and  breathe 
without  understanding  all  the  mysteries  of  respiration, 
and  eat  without  trying  to  figure  out  all  the  unsolved  prob- 
lems of  digestion  and  assimilation. 


X 

DOES    THE    BIBLE    TEACH    SEPARATISM^ 

OUR  purely  doctrinal  discussion  is  now  finished. 
But  we  have  still  more  in  view  in  the  publication 
of  this  book.  We  want  to  see  whether  we  cannot  help 
along  the  cause  of  Lutheran  fellowship,  comity  and  co- 
operation. The  Synodical  Conference  is  separatistic. 
It  will  not  fellowship  with  any  other  body  of  Lutherans, 
and  that  mainly  because  of  its  particularistic  dogmas  of 
election  and  conversion,  which  other  Lutheran  bodies 
cannot  accept.  The  Missourians  even  refused  to  have 
public  prayer  with  the  brethren  of  Ohio  and  Iowa  at 
the  Free  Conference  at  Detroit.  To  engage  in  public 
prayer  with  their  brethren  they  thought  would,  in  some 
way,  compromise  their  principles.  In  our  closing 
chapter  we  shall  try  to  show  that  Lutherans  can,  if  they 
will,  have  spiritual  fellowship  and  engage  in  united 
practical  work  for  Christ  and  His  kingdom,  without  in- 
sisting on  absolute  agreement  on  all  doctrines,  especially 
those  that  belong  to  the  department  of  difficult  and  re- 
fined dogmatic  distinctions.  However,  before  we  come 
to  our  final  chapter,  we  must  try  to  remove  a  difficulty. 
In  order  to  uphold  their  ecclesiastical  exclusiveness, 
our  Missouri  brethren  cite  a  number  of  Scripture  pass- 
ages. They  are  given  in  Dr.  J.  L.  Neve's  account  of 
the  Free  Conference  of  Missouri,  Ohio  and  Iowa  at 
Detroit  in  1904,  where  the  Missourians  declined  to  en- 
gage in  public  prayer  with  their  brethren.    Dr.  Neve  has 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  143 

taken  them  from  a  writing  of  Rev.  J.  Grosse,  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Missouri  Synod.  We  shall  examine 
them,  to  see  whether  they  are  relevant. 

First,  Matt.  7:15:  "Beware  of  false  prophets,  who 
come  to  you  in  sheep's  clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are 
ravening  wolves." 

However,  the  passage  is  not  apropos,  because  the 
Ohio  and  Iowa  brethren  and  the  rest  of  us  Lutherans 
are  not  "wolves  in  sheep's  clothing,"  nor  are  we  "in- 
wardly ravening  wolves."  That  applies  only  to  the  "cor- 
rupt trees,"  "to  be  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire," 
and  to  those  "that  work  iniquity,"  referred  to  in  the 
succeeding  verses.     The  passage  is  not  relevant. 

The  next  passage:  Rom.  16:17:  "Now  I  beseech 
you,  brethren,  mark  them  that  are  causing  divisions  and 
occasions  of  stumbling,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye 
have  learned  :  and  turn  away  from  them." 

Here  is  another  specimen  of  the  disconnected  use 
of  Scripture  which  has  caused  so  much  separatism  and 
strife  in  the  Christian  Church.  If  the  Missouri  brethren 
had  read  the  next  verse,  they  would  have  seen  the  kind 
of  characters  to  whom  Paul  referred :  "For  they  that  are 
such  serve  not  our  Lord  Christ,  but  their  own  belly ; 
and  by  their  smooth  and  fair  speech  they  beguile  the 
hearts  of  the  innocent."  Such  grossness,  selfishness  and 
guile  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Lutherans  whom  our 
Missouri  friends  exclude  from  pulpit  and  altar  fellow- 
ship. If  the  Missouri  brethren  had  read  the  previous 
verses,  they  would  have  found  Paul  saying:  "All  the 
churches  of  Christ  salute  you."  It  does  not  seem  from 
this  loving  salutation  that  Paul  wanted  to  build  up  a 
wall  of  separation  among  the  churches  of  his  day. 


144  Election  and  Conversion 

But  Rom.  16:17  (see  above)  might  just  as  well  be 
used  by  other  Lutherans  against  the  Missouri  brethren : 
"Mark  them  that  are  causing  divisions  and  occasions  of 
stumbling,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have 
learned ;  and  turn  away  from  them."'  Well  might  other 
Lutherans  say,  if  they  wished  to  do  so,  that  it  is  Missouri 
that  is  "causing  divisions  and  occasions  of  stumbling;" 
they  are  the  ones  who  are  separating  themselves  from 
others  by  their  peculiar  doctrines.  They  might  also  say 
that  it  is  Missouri  that  is  teaching  doctrines  "contrary 
to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned;"  for,  if  we  under- 
stand history,  the  Missouri  Synod  did  not  always  teach 
this  strange  doctrine  of  predestination,  but  it  was  intro- 
duced later  by  Dr.  Walter  and  his  coadjutors.  This  is 
what  made  the  trouble ;  this  was  why  some  excellent  men 
now  in  the  Ohio  Synod  could  not  remain  with  it;  this  is 
why  men  like  Allwardt,  Ernst,  Doermann,  Holtermann, 
and  others  were  driven  from  the  Missouri  Synod  and 
formed  the  Northwestern  District,  which  united  with  the 
Joint  Synod.  So,  you  see,  everything  depends  on  who 
the  persons  are  to  whom  the  words  of  Paul  can  properly 
be  applied.  To  our  way  of  thinking,  they  cannot  be 
applied  to  either  party  by  the  other.  When  Christian 
men,  who  believe  the  Bible,  accept  Christ  by  faith,  and 
try  to  follow  Him  in  sincerity  and  truth,  get  into  a 
dispute,  they  ought  not  to  fling  Scripture  passages  that 
would  apply  only  to  heretics,  rank  liberalists  and  outright 
unbelievers  and  sinners.  Misapplying  Biblical  passages 
of  Scripture  is  the  method  of  sectarians,  not  of  true  and 
loyal  Christian  Lutherans. 

Another  favorite  passage  of  exclusivism  is  1  Cor. 
1 :10:    "Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  through  the  name 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  145 

of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same 
thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you ;  but 
that  ye  be  perfected  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the 
same  judgment." 

In  this  instance  we  again  see  the  harm  that  is  done 
to  the  body  of  Christ  by  the  piece-meal  method  of  hand- 
ling the  Word  of  God,  as  if  it  were  composed  of  disjecta 
membra,  instead  of  being  a  harmonious  and  organic 
unity.  Read  on  a  few  verses  and  you  will  see  the  kind 
of  strife  and  divisions  in  the  Corinthian  Church  which 
Paul  was  rebuking:  In  verse  12  he  tells  them  that  he 
had  been  told  that  there  were  contentions  among  them ; 
then  he  goes  on:  "Now  this  I  mean,  that  each  one  of 
you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul;  and  I  of  Cephas;  and  I  of 
Apollos ;  and  I  of  Christ.  Is  Christ  divided  ?  Was  Paul 
crucified  for  you?  Or  were  ye  baptized  into  the  name 
of  Paul  ?"  And  then  he  proceeds  to  show  the  Corinthians 
that  Christ  and  the  gospel  are  the  all-important  matters, 
and  not  the  mere  human  instruments  through  whom  they 
are  given  and  proclaimed.  The  simple  fact  is,  the  Cor- 
inthians were  doing  what  churches  so  often  do  today — 
they  were  quarreling  about  their  preachers,  thinking 
more  of  them  than  of  Christ.  This  was  what  Paul  was 
rebuking,  not  a  difference  of  opinion  on  some  such  diffi- 
cult doctrines  as  the  eternal  divine  decrees  or  the  relation 
of  grace  to  human  responsibility.  Besides,  the  passage 
might  just  as  easily  be  applied  by  other  Lutherans  to 
the  Missouri  brethren  as  the  opposite,  for  they  ought  to 
try  just  as  much  as  the  rest  of  us  to  "be  perfected  to- 
gether in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment." 
One  party  in  the  controversy  should  not  claim  all  these 
passages  in  their  favor.  They  may  be  quoted  by  both 
parties  with  equal  relevancy,  if  they  are  to  be  used  at  all. 


146  Election  and  Conversion 

Our  next  citation  is  2  Cor.  6:17,  18:  "Wherefore, 
come  ye  out  from  among  them,  and  be  ye  separate, 
saith  the  Lord,  and  touch  no  unclean  thing,  and  I  will 
receive  you,  and  will  be  to  you  a  Father,  and  ye  shall 
be  to  me  sons  and  daughters,  saith  the  Almighty." 

No  less  inept  is  this  selection.  Even  the  passage 
itself  would  preclude  its  application  to  Missouri's  fellow- 
Lutherans,  for  it  says,  "Touch  no  unclean  thing."  Are 
other  Lutherans  to  be  regarded  as  an  "unclean  thing?" 
But  the  preceding  verses  define  precisely  the  kind  of  peo- 
ple from  whom  the  Corinthian  Church  was  to  "be  sep- 
arate" (verses  14-16)  :  "Be  not  unequally  yoked  with  un- 
believers." Are  the  rest  of  us  Lutherans  "unbelievers?" 
If  so,  why  are  we  spending  our  days  and  often  our 
nights  in  fighting  infidelity,  rationalism  and  negative 
criticism?  "For  what  fellowship  have  righteousness  and 
iniquity?"  We  know  that  Missouri  is  too  charitable  to 
apply  the  term  "iniquity"  to  the  Lutherans  from  whom 
she  differs.  "Or  what  communion  hath  light  with  dark- 
ness?" Would  Missouri  class  all  Lutherans  outside  of 
her  own  ecclesiastical  fold  as  "darkness?"  "And  what 
concord  hath  Christ  with  Belial?"  Who  is  "Belial"  in 
the  present  controversy?  "Or  what  portion  hath  a  be- 
liever with  an  unbeliever?  And  what  agreement  hath  a 
temple  of  God  with  idols?"  The  rest  of  us  Lutherans 
surely  are  not  idolaters.  Thus  you  see  that  the  above 
citation  is  not  pertinent. 

And  this  reminds  us  of  an  incident.  Years  ago  we 
happened  to  go  into  a  tent  in  which  one  of  the  rankest 
sects  of  the  day  was  holding  a  meeting,  one  of  the  noisy, 
shouting  kind.  They  were  the  so-called  "holiness" 
people,  such  as  thought  they  were  perfectly  sanctified. 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  147 

How  they  did  boast  of  their  superior  spiritual  attain- 
ments!  One  of  them  declared  that  they  had  gotten  so 
far  "beyond  all  other  so-called  Christians  that  they 
couldn't  see  them  any  more  with  a  spy-glass!"  An  ex- 
pression that  seemed  to  please  and  amuse  the  sanctifi- 
cationists  greatly.  And  we  remember  that  one  of  their 
favorite  Bible  citations  was  this  very  one,  "Come  ye  out 
from  among  them,  and  be  ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord." 
It  was  their  sedes  doctrinac.  In  our  early  ministry  we 
were  forced  into  more  or  less  controversy  with  another 
fanatical  sect  called  "Come-outers."  This  same  passage 
was  also  their  stock  in  trade. 

Another  much-used  passage  among  Missouri  Luth- 
erans is  Eph.  4:3-6:  "Giving  diligence  to  keep  the  unity 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  Our  Missouri 
brethren  should  try  to  obey  this  injunction,  just  as  all 
of  us  should.  "There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even 
as  also  ye  were  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling,  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  over  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all." 

Here  is  an  urgent  en  joinder  upon  all  believers  to  be 
united,  and  we  hope  that  all  Lutherans,  Missourian  and 
tiie  rest,  will  heed  it.  One  party  needs  it  just  as  much 
as  the  others.  Instead  of  being  an  argument  for  separa- 
tism, it  is  the  strongest  kind  of  an  argument  for  union 
and  concord.  We  all  have  "one  hope,"  namely,  hope  in 
the  Lord  Christ;  "one  Lord,"  the  same  Christ;  "one 
faith,"  posited  in  the  same  Christ;  "one  baptism,"  for 
the  remission  of  sins  in  the  name  of  Christ ;  "one  God  and 
Father  of  us  all."  In  His  blessed  name,  then,  why  are 
we  not  all  one  body?  If  all  Lutherans  who  are  disposed 
to  be  divisive  would  read  what  Paul  says  in  the  verse 


148  Election  and  Conversion 

preceding  the  above  quotation,  they  would  see  how  unity 
is  to  be  conserved :  "With  all  lowliness  and  meekness, 
with  longsuffering,  forbearing  one  another  in  love ;" 
then,  "giving  diligence  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  bond  of  peace."  A  good  preachment,  and  needed 
by  all  parties. 

The  next  citation  is  1  Tim.  5 :22 :  "Lay  hands 
hastily  on  no  man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  man's 
sins ;  keep  thyself  pure." 

Like  the  rest,  this  passage  is  not  applicable.  It 
refers  to  association  with  sinners  in  a  sinful  way,  not 
with  disciples  who  trust  and  love  the  Lord  Jesus  and 
try  to  follow  Him  in  holiness  of  life.  It  is  not  likely  that 
our  good  Missouri  brethren  would  become  contaminated 
by  having  fellowship  with  other  Lutherans,  for  when  it 
comes  to  purity  of  life,  one  branch  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  no  occasion  for  saying  of  the  rest,  "Lord, 
we  thank  thee  that  we  are  not  as  other  men  are." 

We  give  still  another  sample  of  the  fragmentary 
use  of  Scripture:  Titus  3:10:  "A  factious  man,  after 
a  first  and  second  admonition,  refuse." 

First,  it  all  depends  on  who  is  the  factious  man, 
whether  he  is  the  separatist  or  the  one  who  is  willing 
to  fellowship.  One  might  be  permitted  to  think  that 
the  man  who  does  not  insist  so  much  on  his  own  views, 
but  is  willing  to  accord  to  others  some  liberty  of  opinion, 
would  be  the  less  factious,  not  to  put  it  any  stronger. 
But  the  passage  is  torn  from  its  connection,  and  is  there- 
fore not  pertinent  to  the  situation ;  for  the  next  verse, 
separated  from  the  tenth  by  only  a  semi-colon,  reads : 
"knowing  that  such  a  one  is  perverted,  and  sinneth, 
being  self -condemned."     In  the  days   of   discussion  at 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  149 

Watertown,  Milwaukee  and  Detroit,  we  do  not  think 
that  the  Ohio  and  Iowa  brethren  were  sinners  above 
others,  or  that  they  were  "self-condemned."  All  that 
we  have  ever  spoken  with,  or  whose  writings  we  have 
perused,  seemed  to  think  that  they  had  maintained  their 
own  position  with  a  fair  degree  of  success.  But  read 
the  preceding  verses,  beginning  with  the  8th :  "Faithful 
is  the  saying,  and  concerning  these  things  I  desire  that 
thou  affirm  confidently,  to  the  end  that  they  who  have 
believed  God  may  be  careful  to  maintain  good  works. 
These  things  are  good  and  profitable  unto  you ;  but  shun 
foolish  questionings,  and  genealogies,  and  strifes,  and 
fightings  about  the  law ;  for  they  are  unprofitable  and 
vain."  Now  how  would  Missouri  like  it  if  we  were  to 
apply  these  trenchant  sayings  to  them  and  their  disposi- 
tion to  divide  the  Church  on  questions  that  create  schism  ? 
She  would  say  we  were  quoting  Scripture  irrelevantly. 
So  we  will  not  be  so  ungenerous,  for  she  is  in  earnest, 
and  does  not  believe  the  doctrines  for  which  she  is  con- 
tending are  "foolish  questionings,"  etc.  No  more  do  we 
believe  that  the  whole  passage  has  any  reference  to  other 
Lutherans  w4io  are  just  as  sincere,  intelligent  and  loyal. 
The  last  passage  cited  by  Mr.  Grosse  is  Exod. 
12  :43-48 :  "And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses  and  Aaron, 
This  is  the  ordinance  of  the  Passover:  there  shall  not  a 
foreigner  eat  thereof  .  .  .  And  when  a  stranger  shall 
sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep  the  Passover  to  Jehovah, 
let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him  come 
near  and  keep  it ;  and  he  shall  be  as  one  that  is  born 
in  the  land :  but  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat 
thereof.  One  law  shall  be  unto  him  that  is  home-born, 
and  unto  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you." 


150  Election  and  Conversion 

It  seems  almost  like  legalism  to  go  back  to  the  old 
ceremonial  law  to  find  a  proof-text  for  exclusiveness 
among  Lutherans,  but  we  suppose  the  Missouri  brethren 
would  say  that  the  same  principle  Avould  apply  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  other  forms  of  Christian  fellowship 
as  applied  to  the  Hebrew  feast  of  the  Passover.  Let 
us  go  on  that  supposition.  Would  the  Missourians  say 
all  the  Lutherans  who  do  not  agree  with  them  are 
uncircumcised?  Well,  then,  we  ought  not  to  go  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  at  all,  not  even  in  our  own  churches.  Of 
course,  we  are  speaking  of  the  spiritual  circumcision,  for 
Paul  says  (Rom.  2:28,  29)  :  "For  he  is  not  a  Jew  who 
is  one  outwardly;  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is 
outward  in  the  flesh :  but  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  in- 
wardly; and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the 
spirit,  not  in  the  letter ;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but 
of  God."  Now  what  is  it  to  be  circumcised  in  heart? 
Paul  teaches  it  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans,  whose  doc- 
trinal portion,  the  first  eleven  chapters,  is  devoted  to  an 
exposition  and  defense  of  justification  by  faith  alone. 
Therefore  to  have  true  faith  in  Christ  is  to  have  the 
circumcision  of  the  heart.  We  maintain  that  all  true 
Lutherans  accept  Christ  by  faith ;  therefore,  being  of 
the  true  spiritual  circumcision,  they  have  a  right  to  the 
Lord's  table.  Luther's  Catechisms,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  the  Formula  of  Concord  teach  the  same 
doctrine.  More  than  that,  all  true  Lutherans  believe 
that  they  receive  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the 
Eucharist,  and  this  gives  them  additional  right  to  come 
to  the  blessed  sacrament. 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  none  of  the  Scripture  pass- 
ages quoted  to  uphold  Lutheran  separatism  and  division 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  151 

are  relevant.  A  large  number  of  passages,  we  believe, 
might  be  cited  to  prove  that  division  and  strife  are 
wrong,  and  that  mutual  love,  forbearance  and  concord 
are  the  desire  of  Jesus  Christ.  Those  proof-texts  our 
friends  of  the  Missouri  camp  never  quote.  Let  us  note 
a  few:  John  10:16:  "And  other  sheep  I  have  which 
are  not  of  this  fold :  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  they 
shall  hear  my  voice ;  and  there  shall  be  one  flock  and 
one  shepherd."  It  would  appear  as  if  Christ  said  this 
expressly  to  prevent  the  disciples  before  Him  from 
thinking  that  they  were  the  only  true  sheep — that  is,  to 
preclude  their  becoming  exclusive.  Does  one  part  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  comprise  all  the  sheep  who  hear  the 
Good  Shepherd's  voice? 

Luke  9:49,  50  (cf.  Mark  9:38-40):  "And  John 
answered  and  said.  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils 
in  thy  name ;  and  we  forbade  him,  because  he  f olloweth 
not  with  us.  But  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Forbid  him  not: 
for  he  that  is  not  against  you  is  for  you."  Here  John's 
narrowness,  his  sectarianism,  was  upbraided ;  for  he 
seemed  to  think  that  the  chief  characteristic  of  a  disciple 
was  to  "follow"  in  the  immediate  company  of  Christ  and 
His  apostles;  but  Jesus  in  rebuking  him  taught  all  of 
us  that  the  chief  thing  is  to  be  able  to  cast  out  devils  in 
His  name.  We  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  every  reader 
whether  all  the  branches  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this 
country  (Missouri  included)  have  not  been  doing  such 
work  in  baptizing  children,  teaching  them  afterward  the 
way  of  salvation,  and  in  bringing  thousands  of  adult 
sinners  to  Christ. 

Let  us  note  some  passages  in  Christ's  intercessory 
prayer  (John  17:20-23)  :     "Neither  for  these  only  do  I 


152  Election  and  Conversion 

pray,  but  for  them  also  that  believe  on  me  through  their 
word ;  that  they  may  all  be  one ;  even  as  thou,  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in 
us;  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  didst  send  me. 
And  the  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me  I  have  given 
unto  them ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one ; 

1  in  them  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfected 
into  one ;  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  didst  send 
me,  and  lovedst  them,  even  as  thou  lovedst  me."  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  Christ  has  millions  of  Lutheran 
disciples  in  this  country,  we  think  the  above  prayer  ought 
to  be  fulfilled  among  them ;  and  if  it  were,  what  a  power 
for  Christ  and  His  truth  they  would  be!  One  of  the 
crying  criticisms  of  the  Lutheran  Church  today  is  her 
manifold  and  mutually  exclusive  divisions. 

In  Matt.  23  :8-12  our  Lord  says :  "But  be  not  called 
Rabbi ;  for  one  is  your  Teacher,  and  all  ye  are  brethren. 
And  call  no  man  your  father  on  the  earth ;  for  one  is 
your  Father,  even  He  who  is  in  heaven.  Neither  be  ye 
called  masters,  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ.  But 
he  that  is  greatest  among  you  shall  be  your  servant. 
And  whosoever  shall  exalt  himself  shall  be  humbled ; 
and  whosoever  shall  humble  himself  shall  be  exalted." 
Will  not  all  this  apply  to  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
America?  We  all  acknowledge  Christ,  and  Him  alone, 
as  our  Master ;  then  are  we  not  all  brethren  ? 

There  are  a  number  of  passages  like  1  Tim.  1 :4,  6 :4, 

2  Tim.  2 :23  and  Titus  3  :9,  which  warn  against  "foolish 
and  ignorant  questionings  that  gender  strife ;"  but  by 
reading  the  entire  context  it  will  be  seen  that  they  cannot 
be  applied  either  to  our  Missouri  brethren  or  to  those 
who  differ  from  them,  because  the  great  doctrines  in 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatismf  153 

dispute,  while  they  may  be  said,  in  a  sense,  to  "gender 
strife,"  are  not  to  be  classed  among  the  "foolish  and 
unlearned  questionings."  Therefore  we  cannot  make 
use  of  them  on  either  side  of  the  debate.  However,  we 
believe  that  such  passages  as  the  following  are  imme- 
diately applicable  to  the  Lutheran  situation  in  America. 
Rom.  12:4,  5:  "For  even  as  we  have  many  members 
in  one  body,  and  all  members  have  not  the  same  office : 
so  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
severally  members  one  of  another."  The  whole  of  1  Cor. 
12  is  extremely  pertinent,  especially  verses  12  and  13: 
"For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and 
all  the  members  of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ; 
so  also  is  Christ.  For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized 
into  one  body,  whether  Jews  or  Greeks,  whether  bond 
or  free ;  and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit." 
Rom.  15:5-7:  "Now  the  God  of  patience  and  of  com- 
fort grant  you  to  be  of  the  same  mind  one  with  another 
according  to  Christ  Jesus ;  that  with  one  accord  ye  may 
with  one  mouth  glorify  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  even 
as  Christ  also  received  you,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father."  An  injunction  like  this  cannot  be  set  aside 
without  virtually  un-Christianizing  those  who  are  ex- 
cluded ;  for  we  Lutherans  all  do  with  one  mouth  glorify 
God,  giving  Him  and  Him  alone  the  praise  for  our 
salvation.  2  Cor.  13:11:  "Finally,  brethren,  farewell. 
Be  perfected ;  be  comforted ;  be  of  the  same  mind ;  live 
in  peace,  and  the  God  of  love  and  peace  shall  be  with 
you."  Eph.  4:1-6  has  already  been  quoted,  but  here  we 
call  attention  to  this:  "Giving  diligence  to  keep  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."     Note  Phil. 


154  Election  and  Conversion 

2 :2-4 :  "Make  full  my  joy  that  ye  be  of  the  same  mind, 
having  the  same  love,  being  of  one  accord,  of  one  mind ; 
doing  nothing  through  faction  or  vainglory,  but  in 
lowliness  of  mind,  each  counting  other  better  than  him- 
self ;  not  looking  each  of  you  to  his  own  things,  but  each 
of  you  also  to  the  things  of  others."  This  is  most  im- 
pressive, and  should  be  well  pondered.  1  Pet.  3:8: 
"Finally  be  ye  all  likeminded,  compassionate,  loving  as 
brethren,  tender-hearted,  humble-minded." 

Consider  a  few  passages  that  enjoin  peace  among 
God's  people :  "So  then  let  us  follow  after  things  that 
make  for  peace,  and  things  whereby  we  may  edify  one 
another"  (Rom.  14:19).  While  this  refers  specifically 
to  the  wrangles  over  meats  offered  to  idols,  it  still  may 
stand  as  a  good  general  motto  for  the  Church.  "But 
we  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them  that  labor  among 
you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish  you, 
and  to  esteem  them  exceeding  highly  in  love  for  their 
works'  sake.  Be  at  peace  among  yourselves"  (1  Thess. 
5:12,  13).  "But  flee  youthful  lusts,  and  follow  after 
righteousness,  faith,  love,  peace,  with  them  that  call  on 
the  Lord  out  of  a  pure  heart.  But  foolish  and  ignorant 
questions  refuse,  knowing  that  they  gender  strife ;  and 
the  Lord's  servant  must  not  strive,  but  be  gentle  toward 
all,  apt  to  teach,  forbearing,"  etc.  (2  Tim.  2:22-26). 
"Follow  after  peace  with  all  men,  and  the  sanctification 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord"  (Heb.  12:14). 
"If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  in  you  lieth,  be  at  peace 
with  all  men"  (Rom.  12:18).  This  is  a  capital  passage, 
for  while  it  does  not  ask  of  us  impossibilities,  and  in- 
dicates that  we  must  not  be  indifferent  to  the  truth,  it 
also  shows  clearly  that  we  should  let  the  idea  of  peace 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  155 

be  a  potent  motive  in  our  lives ;  that  we  should  be  just 
as  irenic  as  it  is  possible  for  us  to  be;  that  we  should 
love  peace  better  than  polemics.  "The  wisdom  that  is 
from  above  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  easy  to 
be  entreated,"  etc.  (Jas.  3:17).  While  purity  is  put 
first,  peaceableness  is  put  second. 

How  often  the  apostles  deprecated  contentions, 
divisions  and  unnecessary  disputes!  In  1  Cor.  1:10,  11, 
Z:Z,  11:18,  and  Rom.  16:17  Paul  rebukes  the  factious 
spirit.  Of  course,  all  parties  may  apply  these  passages  to 
their  opponents,  but  that  would  not  be  fair ;  we  should  all 
conscientiously  consider  whether  they  will  not  apply  to 
ourselves;  perhaps,  after  all,  some  of  us  may  have  been 
more  anxious  to  vindicate  our  views  than  to  show  forth 
the  glory  of  God. 

The  whole  of  Rom.  14  might  well  be  read  in  this 
connection.  Take  a  few  verses  (1-5):  "But  him  that 
is  weak  in  faith  receive  ye,  yet  not  for  decision  of 
scruples  (margin,  to  doubtful  disputations).  One  man 
hath  faith  to  eat  all  things ;  but  he  that  is  weak  eateth 
herbs.  Let  not  him  that  eateth  set  at  naught  him  that 
eateth  not;  and  let  not  him  that  eateth  not  judge  him 
that  eateth ;  for  God  hath  received  him.  Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  the  servant  of  another?  To  his  own  lord 
he  standeth  or  falleth  .  .  .  One  man  esteemeth  one  day 
above  another:  another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let 
each  man  be  fully  assured  in  his  own  mind."  Vs.  10-13 : 
"But  thou,  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or  thou 
again,  why  dost  thou  set  at  naught  thy  brother?  For  we 
shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God  ...  So 
then  each  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God. 
Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another  any  more;  but 


156  Election  and  Conversion 

judge  ye  this  rather,  that  no  man  put  a  stumbHng-block 
in  his  brother's  way,  or  an  occasion  of  falHng."  Paul 
was  here  speaking  about  meats  and  drinks  and  ceremonial 
observances,  but  the  general  principle  should  be  taken 
to  heart  by  us  Lutherans,  to  see  whether  we  have  not 
been  more  given  to  judging,  criticising  and  excluding 
than  looking  for  the  things  that  make  for  peace  and 
good  will. 

Those  who  are  interested  in  our  Lutheran  polemics 
will  not  need  many  Biblical  citations  on  Christian  love. 
They  are  scattered  all  through  the  New  Testament,  much 
more  being  said  about  love  among  brethren  than  about 
contending  for  the  faith,  even  though  that  is  very,  very 
important.  Note  just  a  few  leading  passages  to  refresh 
our  memories.  John  15  :12  :  "This  is  my  commandment, 
that  ye  love  one  another,  even  as  I  have  loved  you ;"  also 
17:  "These  things  I  command  you,  that  ye  may  love 
one  another."  Rom.  13:8:  "Owe  no  man  anything  save 
to  love  one  another ;  for  he  that  loveth  his  neighbor  hath 
fulfilled  the  whole  law."  1  Pet.  2:17:  "Honor  all  men. 
Love  the  brotherhood.  Fear  God.  Honor  the  king." 
1  Pet.  3:8:  .  .  .  "Loving  as  brethren,  tender-hearted, 
humble-minded."  1  John  1 :11 :  "For  this  is  the  message 
which  ye  heard  from  the  beginning,  that  we  should  love 
one  another;"  14:  "We  know  that  we  have  passed  out 
of  death  into  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren;"  4:7: 
"Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another ;  for  love  is  of  God ; 
and  every  one  that  loveth  is  begotten  of  God,  and 
knoweth  God;"  11:  "Beloved,  if  God  so  loved  us,  we 
ought  also  to  love  one  another;"  12:  "No  man  hath 
beheld  God  at  any  time :  if  we  love  one  another,  God 
abideth  in  us,  and  His  love  is  perfected  in  us."  Here 
belongs   the  whole  of  1  Cor.  13. 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Separatism?  157 

Look  at  Psalm  133:  "Behold,  how  good  and  how 
pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity  .  .  . 
For  there  Jehovah  commandeth  the  blessing,  even  life 
forevermore."     Parallel  passages,  Gen.  13:8;  Heb.  13:1. 

We  hope  the  foregoing  will  not  be  looked  upon  as 
sentimentality  and  preachment.  It  is  meant  for  ourself 
as  much  as  for  our  brethren.  Well  are  we  aware  that 
love,  which  is  an  emotion,  cannot  decide  the  truth  in 
matters  of  doctrine,  for  that  function  belongs  to  the 
intellect;  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  the  principle 
of  love  were  always  potent  in  the  hearts  of  men,  there 
would  be  much  less  disputation,  and  that  which  becomes 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  sake  of  truth,  would  be 
conducted  in  a  much  kindlier  spirit  than  has  marked 
many  of  the  controversies  of  the  Christian  Church. 
This  part  of  our  discussion  will  be  closed  with  several 
pregnant  selections  from  1  Cor.  13,  according  to  the 
beautiful  Old  Version :  "Charity  sufifereth  long,  and  is 
kind ;  ...  is  not  easily  provoked,  thinketh  no  evil  .  .  . 
And  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  charity,  these  three;  and 
the  greatest  of  these  is  charity." 

To  clinch  and  finish  the  whole  Biblical  argument : 
since  such  Christian  virtues  as  faith,  hope,  love,  brotherly 
kindness,  forbearance,  unity  and  peace  are  enjoined  so 
much  more  frequently  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  than  con- 
tending for  doctrine,  they  ought  to  occupy  a  much  higher 
place  than  they  do  in  our  Lutheran  Church ;  they  ought 
to  make  us  more  generous  and  less  critical ;  they  ought  to 
make  us  more  anxious  to  find  common  ground  than 
grounds  of  difference ;  and  in  cases  where  discussion 
becomes  absolutely  necessary,  they  should  pervade  it  all 
with  their  gentle  and  magnanimous  spirit. 


XI 
THE    QUESTION    OF    LUTHERAN    UNITY 

THIS  book  has  been  written  with  two  primary 
objects  in  view :  First,  to  see  if  any  new  light 
might  be  shed  on  the  doctrines  in  debate ;  second,  to 
lead  up  to  some  humble,  and  we  hope  helpful,  sugges- 
tions on  the  burning  question  of  Lutheran  unity. 

It  may  be  thought  by  some  that,  to  engage  first  in 
a  doctrinal  discussion,  is  a  poor  way  to  promote  Lutheran 
fellowship  and  co-operation.  That  objection,  however, 
would  not  be  well  taken.  We  Lutherans  are  too  much 
concerned  for  "the  pure  doctrine"  {die  reine  Lehre), 
and  rightly  so,  to  imagine  we  can  ever  get  together  with- 
out a  full  and  frank  discussion  of  our  doctrinal  differ- 
ences. To  ignore  what  we  hold  to  be  the  truth,  and 
make  compromises  before  we  see  a  good  and  substantial 
basis  for  union,  would  be  entirely  foreign  to  the  genius 
of  the  Lutheran  Church.  From  a  Lutheran  view-point 
it  would  be  premature  and  ill-advised.  Such  a  plan  may 
do  for  that  doctrinally  indeterminate  and  indifferent 
movement  known  as  the  "Federal  Council  of  Churches 
of  Christ  in  America,"  but  it  is  not  feasible  for  Luth- 
erans. By  the  candid  discussion  of  doctrine,  as  well  as 
other  vital  matters,  we  hope  the  atmosphere  will  become 
more  and  more  clarified,  so  that  we  may  be  brought  to 
see  eye  to  eye.  At  all  events,  a  mechanical  and  forced 
union  will  not  satisfy  us  Lutherans. 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  159 

Still  another  motive  impelled  us  to  take  up  this  dis- 
cussion :  we  could  not,  in  all  good  conscience,  let  Dr. 
Pieper's  book  go  unchallenged,  as  if  it  were  the  only 
view  that  could  be  tolerated  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 
Suppose  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  should,  for  the  sake 
of  union,  or  for  any  other  reason  or  reasons,  go  over 
to  that  view,  and  should  put  it  in  a  creed  or  platform; 
then  suppose  that  by  and  by,  after  more  thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  Scriptures,  that  view  should  be  found  to 
be  erroneous — what  then  ?  No ;  it  is  better  not  to  try 
to  force  a  union  on  these  deep  and  difficult  doctrines. 
In  the  present  state  of  the  discussion  they  should  be  left 
in  the  sphere  of  Lutheran  liberty  for  still  further  study. 
We  already  agree  on  all  the  vital  doctrines,  as  we  shall 
point  out  a  little  later,  and  so  can  afford  to  leave  some 
recondite  matters  to  individual  judgment. 

Our  presentation  shows,  we  think,  that  the  truth 
is  not  all  on  one  side;  that  much  Scripture  can  be  cited 
and  many  sound  arguments  adduced  for  the  views  of 
election  that  are  held  by  most  Lutherans  outside  of  the 
Synodical  Conference.  This  proves  that  it  is  useless 
to  talk  about  Lutheran  union  solely  on  that  body's  con- 
ception of  the  doctrines  of  election  and  conversion. 
And  why  should  our  Missouri  brethren  insist  upon  their 
views  as  the  only  terms  of  union?  Do  not  the  rest  of 
us  have  access  to  the  Bible  and  the  Confessions  as  well 
as  they?  We  are  sure  that  such  insistence  on  Missouri's 
part  will  indefinitely  postpone  the  day  of  Lutheran  union. 
Is  there  not  "a  more  excellent  way?" 

Take  a  survey  of  the  situation :  The  Synodical 
Conference,  the  Iowa  Synod,  the  General  Council,  the 
Joint   Synod  of  Ohio,  the  Norwegian   Synod,  and  the 


160  Election  and  Conversion 

United  Synod  of  the  South,  all  accept  confessionally 
the  whole  Book  of  Concord ;  and  they  do  so  sincerely. 
"What  doth  hinder"  their  being  united?  What  do  they 
separate  on?  Very  largely  on  the  doctrine  of  election 
and  conversion.  The  Conference  insists  that  her  view 
is  the  only  true  and  possible  one.  Her  unmovable  stand 
on  these  matters  leads  her  to  exclusiveness  and  isolation. 
Why  this  constant  insistence  on  these  refined  theological 
distinctions?  We  believe  that  the  Lutheran  bodies 
named  would  be  willing  to  allow  Missouri  to  believe  as 
she  pleased  on  these  doctrines,  providing  she  would  not 
make  them  the  condition  of  fellowship  and  co-operation. 
Therefore  we  fear  that  the  responsibility  for  the  divided 
state  of  the  bodies  named  lies  largely  at  the  door  of  the 
Synodical  Conference.  In  view  of  all  that  can  be  said 
and  has  been  said  on  the  other  side,  is  she  willing  longer 
to  carry  the  burden  of  responsibility?  If  Christ  wants 
all  His  disciples  to  be  one,  does  He  not  want  His  millions 
of  Lutheran  disciples  to  be  one? 

And  why  should  Lutherans  be  divided  on  par- 
ticularistic views  of  the  doctrines  of  election  and  con- 
version, so  long  as  they  all  hold  to  justification  by  faith 
alone,  sola  gratia  and  universalis  gratia?  The  mooted 
doctrines  are  profound  and  difficult.  By  their  very 
nature  they  are  so.  Election  goes  back  into  eternity, 
and  tries  to  work  out  the  nature  of  the  divine  decrees. 
Is  it  right  for  poor,  finite  mortals  to  think  that  they  can 
so  define  what  God  did  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  as  to  exclude  and  un-Lutheranize  other  Christians 
who  cannot  see  precisely  as  they  do?  The  same  is  true 
of  conversion.  All  of  us  believe  that  men  must  be 
converted;  that  God  alone  can  and  must  convert  them; 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  161 

that  they  are  saved  purely  by  grace.  All  of  us  repudiate 
both  Synergism  and  Pelagianism.  Then  what  causes 
schism?  Why,  the  attempt  to  determine  that  fine  line 
where  divine  causality  and  human  freedom  meet — a  line 
that  no  man,  however  incisive,  can  definitely  mark  out 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all  others.  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  we  are  causing  schism  in  the  body  of  Christ  by 
wrangling  over  questions  that  are  too  deep  for  us.  From 
the  time  of  Luther,  Brenz,  Chemnitz  down  to  the 
present,  the  keenest  Christian  minds  have  been  trying  to 
figure  out  these  profound  doctrines ;  yet  they  could  not 
in  the  past,  and  they  cannot  now,  see  alike.  Think  of 
the  days  that  were  spent  by  the  Missourians  and  the 
anti-Missourians  at  the  conferences  at  Watertown,  Mil- 
waukee and  Detroit,  in  1903-4,  in  contending  over  these 
mooted  doctrines,  with  theological  giants  on  both  sides, 
and  yet  no  agreement  could  be  reached.  Why  continue  to 
insist  on  a  particularistic  view  ?  Must  every  question  be  a 
closed  question  before  we  can  come  together  in  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace?  Even  some  of  the 
Missouri  theologians  have  had  shades  of  difference 
among  themselves,  yet  they  tolerated  one  another.  Why 
not  just  slightly  increase  the  boundaries  of  Lutheran 
toleration  ? 

Let  us  see  why  it  is  neither  right  nor  necessary  to 
divide  the  Church  on  these  theological  subtleties.  Both 
parties  are  equally  sincere  and  earnest  in  accepting  the 
Bible  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God.  They  would  make 
common  cause  against  rationalism  and  the  negative 
criticism.  Both  parties  are  equally  devoted  to  all  the 
Symbolical  Books ;  both  quote  them  again  and  again  to 
substantiate  their  different  views.     In  reading  Stellhorn, 


162  Election  and  Conversion 

Jacobs  and  Pieper  we  have  been  much  impressed  with  the 
fact  that  all  of  them  quote  from  the  same  articles  of 
the  Formula.  And  again  there  is  about  equal  scholarship 
on  both  sides.  All  you  need  to  do  is  to  note  their  lavish 
quotations  from  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  German,  and 
other  languages,  and  their  copious  references  to  many 
matters  that  belong  to  the  domain  of  scholarship,  to  be 
convinced  that  in  the  way  of  cultural  training  and  skill 
they  are  protagonists  worthy  of  one  another's  steel.  Now, 
under  these  circumstances,  can  they  not  see  that  the 
doctrines  about  which  they  contend  are  of  too  abstruse 
and  academic  a  character  to  be  made  the  gravaman  of 
division?  Why  not  agree  to  differ  as  brethren  of  the 
same  household  of  faith? 

Note  another  matter — how  labored  and  extended 
are  the  arguments  that  each  side  employs  to  uphold  its 
views;  how  winding  and  intricate  are  the  logical  pro- 
cesses, with  more  than  one  effort  to  hang  an  opponent 
on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma ;  how  much  fine  and  scholarly 
exegesis  must  be  used ;  how  many  quotations  from  the 
learned  languages ;  pages  upon  pages  of  the  finest  dis- 
tinctions, amounting  in  some  cases  almost  to  hair-split- 
ting! Is  it  right,  we  repeat,  for  the  dogmaticians  to 
divide  the  Church,  and  keep  her  divided,  on  such  difficult 
and  erudite  questions?  If  the  Missourians  should  say 
that  their  theology  is  very  simple;  that  they  just  accept 
the  pure,  plain  Word  of  God;  our  reply  is:  Then  why 
all  this  labored  argument,  all  these  scholastic  terms,  all 
these  refined  distinctions,  in  order  to  try  to  convince  the 
other  party?  And  still  they  have  not  convinced  their 
opponents,  who  accept  the  Word  of  God  with  just  as 
implicit  faith  as  they — the  Missourians — do.     This  very 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  163 

fact  proves  that  these  doctrines  belong  to  the  subtleties 
of  dogmatics.  We  do  not  ask  Missouri  to  give  up  her 
views,  but  simply  not  to  make  their  acceptance  by  others 
the  terms  of  fellowship  and  union.  Cannot  Missouri 
be  as  generous  as  the  rest  of  us  ? 

Another  matter  worth  considering:  So  many 
people  stumble  over  what  is  called  rabies  theologicorum, 
the  anger  of  the  theologians.  Many  good  people  think 
that  the  theologians  are  mostly  to  blame  for  our  divisions. 
They  cannot  understand  what  all  the  controversy  is 
about.  We  have  heard  more  than  one  layman  say  that 
the  Lutheran  Church  could  be  united  but  for  the 
theological  professors,  who,  they  contend,  are  engaged 
in  hair-splitting,  in  trying  to  make  distinctions  where 
there  are  no  differences.  Of  course,  they  do  not  under- 
stand our  sincere  concern  for  the  truth,  nor  can  they 
always  discern  the  sharp  edge  of  dangerous  heresy;  just 
as,  not  long  ago,  a  prominent  university  professor  scoffed 
at  the  Nicene  Council  for  "wasting  weeks  over  the  dis- 
cussion of  a  word !"  He  was  unable  to  see  that  the  very 
heart  of  the  Christian  religion  was  then  and  there 
involved.  However,  we  maintain  that  our  Lutheran 
theologians  should  give  as  little  occasion  as  possible  for 
such  criticism,  and  should  be  more  anxious  for  unity 
than  for  particularistic  views  of  doctrine  that  do  not 
involve  the  foundations  of  the  evangelical  and  Lutheran 
faith. 

Anent  the  present  discussion  we  are  sure  this 
criticism  will  be  passed  by  many  sincere  and  earnest 
people  in  the  Lutheran  Church :  that  while  we  Lutherans 
are  spending  our  time  and  strength  in  controversy  over 
the  old  and  always  divisive  doctrines  of  election  and 


164  Election  and  Conversion 

conversion,  some  of  the  denominations  are  busy  doing 
practical  work,  gathering  people  into  their  folds,  and 
even  stealing  some  of  our  sheep.  Whether  the  criticism 
will  be  just  or  not,  let  us  reduce  to  the  minimum  the 
occasion  for  making  it.  Every  time  there  is  a  quarrel  in 
the  Lutheran  Church  the  proselyting  sects  rejoice  and 
take  advantage  of  it. 

Do  not  think  for  a  moment  that  we  would  want  to 
shut  off  theological  investigation  and  discussion.  That 
would  be  inane.  Whenever  a  Church  gets  to  the  point 
that  it  is  indifferent  to  pure  doctrine,  gives  up  depth  of 
thinking,  and  lightly  regards  thorough-going  scholarship, 
it  will  soon  become  superficial  and  consequently  decadent. 
Trees  that  root  shallowly  are  not  enduring.  Reverent 
research  and  exchange  of  views  will  lead  to  still  deeper 
understanding  and  appreciation  of  the  vast  mines  of 
Biblical  truth.  However,  polemics,  accompanied  by  more 
or  less  stress  of  feeling,  is  not  so  apt  to  be  judicial  and 
unbiassed.  Therefore  we  believe  that,  if  these  divisive 
questions  could  be  left  to  individual  liberty,  and  were 
not  placed  in  the  list  of  essentials,  they  could  be  discussed 
with  greater  calmness,  less  heat  of  controversy,  less  con- 
cern for  sectarian  victory,  and  thus  the  truth  itself  would 
have  freer  course. 

In  the  interest  of  Lutheran  comity,  we  desire  here 
to  insert  a  remark,  which  we  hope  will  prove  helpful. 
On  page  146  Dr.  Pieper  says:  "To  state  the  matter 
concretely,  that  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  which  has 
hitherto  taught  that  the  converting  and  saving  grace  of 
God  is  governed  by  the  correct  or  good  conduct  of  man, 
and  has  in  such  conduct  discovered  the  ground  of  ex- 
planation for  the  discretio  personarum,  must  surrender 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  165 

that  teaching  without  any  reservation  whatever.  If  this 
is  not  done,  all  unity  between  the  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy is  specious." 

This  sounds  very  like  an  ultimatum.  But  we  hope 
Dr.  Pieper  will  not  be  too  rigid  and  insistent.  How- 
ever, on  this  particular  point  he  has  much  truth  on  his 
side.  Therefore  we  would  venture  to  suggest  and  advise 
some  yielding  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  anti-Missouri- 
ans.  It  certainly  does  seem  to  be  a  dangerous  mode  of 
expression  to  say  that  God  has  elected  any  man  in  view  of 
"correct  or  good  conduct,"  or  that  "good  conduct"  in 
any  way  prepares  him  for  conversion.  Whatever  the 
parties  who  have  used  this  mode  of  expression  may  have 
meant  by  it,  every  one  can  see,  after  a  moment's  atten- 
tion, that  it  squints  toward  work-righteousness  and  human 
merit — a  heresy  that  should  be  rigidly  excluded  from  the 
Lutheran  Church.  So  let  us  all  agree  to  avoid  and  reject 
this  "good  conduct"  method  of  expression,  and  also  the 
thought  that  it  connotes.  It  is  different,  however,  when 
you  say  electio  intuitu  fidei,  for,  as  we  have  shown,  in 
faith  there  is  no  merit,  and  it  excludes  all  ideas  of  merit ; 
and  therefore  the  doctrine  of  sola  gratia  is  sacredly  pre- 
served. Now,  if  the  one  party  will  give  up  the  term 
"good  conduct,"  could  not  Dr.  Pieper  and  his  synodical 
brethren  join  them  in  fellowship  on  the  basis  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  alone,  salvation  by  grace  alone,  and  the 
genuine  offer  of  grace  and  salvation  to  all,  with  liberty 
on  any  peculiar  view  of  election  and  conversion  ?  Why  not 
hoist  the  white  flag  and  declare  peace  ? 

But  there  are  some  branches  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
that  do  not  stand  on  quite  the  same  confessional  basis 
as  the  bodies  previously  named.    We  refer  to  the  General 


166  Election  and  Conversion 

Synod  and  some  of  the  Scandinavian  bodies.  What  is 
to  be  our  share  and  position  in  the  proposed  plan  for 
Lutheran  unity?  We  should  like  to  be  included  in  the 
project.  We  ought  not  to  be  left  out  in  the  cold.  We 
might  help  the  good  cause  along.  (Remember,  just  now 
we  are  thinking  more  of  unity,  fellowship  and  co-opera- 
tion than  of  organic  union).  All  of  us  accept,  ex  animo, 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  as  our  creed — quia, 
not  quatenus — and  Luther's  Small  Catechism  as  a  book 
of  instruction.  Now,  since  a//  genuine  Lutherans  in  this 
country  accept  the  Augustana,  would  not  that  be  the  most 
satisfactory  basis  for  Lutheran  comity  and  co-operation  ? 
There  all  could  stand.  And,  after  all,  the  Augsburg 
Confession  contains  the  seed  and  essence  of  the  Lutheran 
faith,  all  concisely  and  lucidly  set  forth ;  the  other  Sym- 
bols are  only  the  development  of  these  seminal  principles. 
Why  would  it  not  be  feasible  for  all  Lutherans  to  ack- 
nowledge all  other  Lutherans  on  that  platform,  and  hold 
fellowship  with  them?  We  do  not  mean  that  the  Con- 
cordia Lutherans  should  give  up  their  confessional  basis, 
nor,  indeed,  that  any  branch  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
should  surrender  her  creed  or  her  autonomy ;  but  how 
excellent  it  would  be  if  we  could  all  work  together 
amicably  in  fellowship  and  effort  on  the  above  basis ! 
Should  the  time  ever  come  when,  by  means  of  friendly 
discussion  and  negotiation,  we  could  adjust  our  con- 
fessional differences,  an  organic  union  might  then  be 
effected,  and  all  Lutherans  could  march  abreast  against 
the  common  foe  under  one  flag. 

You  see,  brethren,  that  the  General  Synod  and  the 
Scandinavian  Synods,  in  accepting  from  the  heart  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  necessarily  accept  the  true  doctrine 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  167 

of  justification  by  faith  alone,  which  carries  with  it,  pure 
and  undefiled,  the  precious  doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace 
alone.  If  our  Missouri  brethren  could  hear  the  teachers 
in  our  General  Synod  seminaries  insisting  on  the  doc- 
trines of  grace,  and  condemning  all  human  merit  and 
work-righteousness,  they  could  not  help  feeling  that  we 
stand  solidly  on  those  great  basal  doctrines.  The  doc- 
trine most  insistently  taught  by  every  member  of  the 
Wittenberg  theological  faculty  is  that  the  merits  of  Christ 
are  the  sole  ground  of  our  salvation,  and  that  those  merits 
are  apprehended  and  appropriated  by  faith  alone.  We 
are  sure  that  all  the  General  Synod  seminaries  teach  the 
same  kind  of  theology. 

Just  to  venture  a  little  further,  hoping  we  will  not 
be  thought  guilty  of  temerity,  we  think  that  something 
like  the  following  might  be  seriously  considered  as  a 
feasible  platform  for  Lutheran  unification  in  America: 
To  hold  and  accept  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 
as  our  creed,  and  Luther's  Small  Catechism  as  our  book 
of  instruction  ;  then  to  acknowledge  the  abiding  historical, 
doctrinal,  and  spiritual  value  of  the  Secondary  Symbols 
of  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  to  maintain  that  a  thorough 
mastery  of  their  contents  is  necessary  in  order  properly  to 
understand  and  appreciate  the  Lutheran  system  of  faith. 
This  would  give  us  a  fixed  and  fundamental  Lutheran 
creed  on  which  all  Lutherans  could  stand,  and  yet  would 
place  the  development  and  theological  refinements  of  the 
supplemental  Confessions  in  the  domain  of  liberty  and 
free  discussion.  We  believe,  too,  that  this  platform  would 
not  keep  before  the  Church  so  many  questions  that 
gender  division. 

A  supreme  argument  for  Lutheran  unity  and  co- 


168  Election  and  Conversion 

operation  in  America  is  the  wonderful  doctrinal  agree- 
ment that  already  exists  among.  See  how  we  hold  in 
common  everything  that  is  fundamental  to  purity  of  doc- 
trine and  development  in  life.  There  is  not  an  ecclesi- 
astical body  in  America  that  is  such  a  compact  doctrinal 
solidarity  as  is  the  Lutheran  Church.  Let  us  see  how 
true  this  is. 

First,  all  of  us  accept  the  whole  Bible  as  the  inspired 
Word  of  God.  We  know  of  only  two  men  among  us 
who  are  in  the  least  tainted  with  the  so-called  "new" 
theology  and  the  mutilating  Biblical  criticism,  and  they 
occupy  no  commanding  theological  positions  in  the 
Church.  There  is  only  one  other  branch  of  the  Christian 
Church  here  in  America  that  stands  thus  united  on  the 
Bible;  for  it  is  an  outstanding  fact  that  most  of  the  de- 
nominations are  infected,  and  some  of  them  fairly  honey- 
combed, with  the  negative  higher  criticism  and  the 
naturalistic  views  of  religion.  The  Lutheran  Church  has 
evidently  "come  to  the  kingdom  for  such  a  time  as  this" — 
to  save  the  Bible  and  the  evangelical  faith  from  the  hands 
of  critical  vandalism.  Oh,  that  we  might  cease  to  oppose 
one  another!  Oh,  that  we  might  mobilize  our  forces 
against  the  common  foe ! 

A  further  bond  of  unity  among  us  is  our  undivided 
allegiance  to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  What 
a  solid  front  that  gives  us !  No  need  of  further  debate 
about  our  fundamental  and  generic  creed.  Nowhere  else 
will  you  find  such  confessional  unanimity. 

Nor  is  that  all :  every  Lutheran  body  in  this  country 
joins  all  other  Lutherans  in  holding  the  other  Symbols 
in  the  highest  regard,  even  where  they  are  not  adopted 
officially  in  the  credal  sense.     In  view  of  so  much  unity 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  169 

among  us,  why  should  we  not  cease  to  fight  among  our- 
selves? Why  not  join  hands  and  hearts  in  advancing  the 
kingdom  of  God?  Why  set  up  altar  against  altar?  We 
pray  that  we  may  all  whet  our  swords,  gird  on  the  whole 
armor  of  God,  unite  our  forces,  and  march  in  solid 
phalanx  against  the  common  foes  of  our  religion.  We 
believe  such  a  sight  would  be  pleasing  to  Him  who  said : 
"One  is  your  Master,  even  Christ;  and  all  ye  are 
brethren." 

The  sectary  might  raise  a  fine,  technical  point  just 
here,  namely :  You  have  tried  to  show  that  the  Missouri 
Synod  has  misconceived  some  parts  of  God's  Word,  and 
has  put  the  Lutheran  regulative  doctrine  in  a  subordinate 
place.  Would  not  these  facts  logically  make  you  ex- 
clusive toward  Missouri?  How  can  you  still  be  willing 
to  hold  fellowship  with  her  ?  Our  reply  is :  First,  by 
love.  Love  is  "the  greatest  thing  in  the  world"  (1  Cor. 
13:13).  "Love  sufifereth  long,  and  is  kind  .  .  .  love 
vaunteth  not  itself,  is  not  puffed  up  .  .  .  thinketh  no 
evil  .  .  .  believeth  all  things ;  hopeth  all  things ;  endureth 
all  things ;  love  never  faileth." 

Secondly,  by  logical  consistency.  We  agree  on  all 
the  fundamental  matters,  Missouri  and  the  rest  of  us. 
We  are  equally  sincere  and  earnest ;  with  equal  fervor 
we  accept  the  whole  Bible  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God ; 
with  no  reservations  we  accept  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  and  Luther's  Small  Catechism;  we  hold  the 
whole  system  of  evangelical  truth,  including  the  doctrines 
of  the  Trinity,  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  the 
divine-human  person  of  Christ,  the  vicarious  atonement, 
etc. ;  no  less  heartily  do  all  of  us  accept  our  distinctive 
Lutheran  doctrines :  justification  by  faith  alone ;  salvation 


170  Election  and  Conversion 

by  grace  alone ;  the  universal  offer  of  salvation ;  the 
communicatio  idiotnatum  respecting  the  natures  of 
Christ ;  the  real  presence  of  His  body  and  blood  in  the 
Holy  Supper ;  the  Word  and  the  sacraments  as  the  means 
of  grace;  the  regenerating  efficacy  of  child  baptism; 
private  confession  and  absolution  (of  course  not  in  the 
sacerdotal  sense)  ;  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers. 
And  these  are  the  essential  doctrines.  A  particularistic 
view  of  election  and  conversion  is  not  fundamental  in  the 
Lutheran  Church,  for  from  the  start  some  of  our  best 
and  most  loyal  theologians  have  held  diverse  opinions  re- 
specting them.  The  doctrines  on  which  we  agree  are 
so  much  more  numerous  and  vital  than  those  about  which 
we  differ  that  we  could  easily  fellowship  with  our 
Missouri  brethren,  without  asking  them  to  accept  all  our 
views  respecting  the  matters  at  issue.  This,  we  maintain, 
is  a  consistent  position. 

An  objection  may  be  sprung:  All  that  has  been  said 
in  favor  of  Lutheran  union  might  also  be  said  in  favor 
of  union  with  other  branches  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  caveat,  however,  would  not  be  well  taken.  First, 
we  Lutherans  are  much  nearer  together  doctrinally 
than  we  are  with  the  denominations.  Some  of  the  doc- 
trines that  we  hold  most  dear  they  repudiate.  If  you 
think  they  do  not,  just  spring  those  doctrines  in  the 
presence  of  their  theologians.  It  would  be  a  long,  long 
time  before  we  could  come  to  an  agreement  doctrinally 
with  other  communions ;  and  perhaps  it  could  never  be 
accomplished,  for  we  Lutherans  could  never  consent  to 
surrender  or  compromise  our  precious  doctrines  of  the 
ubiquity  of  Christ's  glorified  human  nature,  of  His  real 
presence  in  the  Holy  Communion,  of  baptismal  grace, 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  171 

nor  could  we  subscribe  to  a  platform  of  indifferentism 
toward  these  doctrines.  Doctrinally,  therefore,  a  general 
union  is  not  feasible.  Let  us  confine  our  attention  to 
what  is  much  more  practicable,  the  possibility  of  Luth- 
eran unity. 

Then,  the  denominations  differ  so  much  from  us 
in  practice  that  union  with  them  is  out  of  the  question. 
Perhaps  most  serious  of  all  is  the  fact  that,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions,  the  denominations  are  honey-combed 
with  liberalizing  tendencies  in  theology  and  with  ex- 
tremely loose  ideas  of  the  inspiration,  authority  and 
historicity  of  the  Bible.  These  latitudinarian  views  are 
taught  in  many  of  their  theological  schools,  and  preached 
in  many  of  their  pulpits.  Therefore  anything  like  a  real 
sympathetic  union  and  fellowship  with  them  under  these 
circumstances  is  impossible.  With  us  Lutherans  in 
America  it  is  different.  We  can  say  that  we  are  a  unit 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Here  we  ought  to  stand 
together  and  present  a  solid  front  to  rationalism,  negative 
criticism  and  liberalistic  theology.  Again  we  say,  the 
Lutheran  Church  has  "come  to  the  kingdom  for  such  a 
time  as  this." 

Once  more,  and  this  time  more  of  a  plea  than  an 
argument.  Lutherans  ought  to  be  willing  to  overlook 
some  fault  in  one  another.  They  ought  not  to  be  hyper- 
critical. This  is  not  a  world  of  perfection.  They  should 
cultivate  the  charity  that  "thinketh  no  evil."  As  far  as 
possible,  they  should  put  the  best  construction  on  one 
another's  actions.  There  are  some  methods  and  practices 
in  all  branches  of  our  Zion  that  are  not  quite  to  the 
liking  of  the  other  bodies.  Most  of  us  can  even  see  things 
in  our  own  ecclesiastical  communions  that  we  should 


172  Election  and  Conversion 

like  to  see  changed.  But  all  of  us  must  refrain  from 
being  too  severe  in  our  judgments.  Nor  should  we  insist 
on  too  rigid  a  discipline  in  other  bodies.  For  example, 
to  be  perfectly  frank,  it  has  often  puzzled  us  how  saloon- 
keepers and  liquor-dealers  could  be  tolerated  in  any 
Lutheran  Church  of  America ;  but  even  here  we  are  not 
ready  to  be  too  condemnatory  in  our  judgment,  for  we 
cannot  perhaps  quite  "put  ourself  in  the  place"  of  those 
who  must  put  up  with  such  men.  If  a  General  Synod  min- 
ister were  to  go  before  a  State  legislature,  or  a  committee 
of  it,  and  advocate  Sunday  base-ball,  we  believe  he  would 
be  called  to  account  by  the  District  Synod  to  which  he 
belonged.  We  know  of  such  a  case  in  one  branch  of  the 
Lutheran  Church ;  yet  the  offender  never  received  a  word 
of  synodical  rebuke! 

Just  so  other  branches  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
should  remember  the  peculiar  situation  in  the  General 
Synod  with  regard  to  certain  matters — for  instance,  the 
lodge  question  and  a  little  liberalism — that  others  think 
ought  to  call  for  strenuous  discipline.  In  our  branch  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  this  gentle  principle  largely  pre- 
vails :  "Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  any  trespass, 
ye  who  are  spiritual  restore  such  a  one  in  the  spirit  of 
gentleness ;  looking  to  thyself,  lest  thou  also  be  tempted. 
Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and  so  fulfill  the  law 
of  Christ."  True,  this  mild  method  may  be  abused ;  but 
it  may  also  be  transgressed. 

For  years  the  General  Synod  seems  to  have  been 
the  object  of  special  criticism.  Perhaps  it  has,  in  a  way, 
turned  out  for  our  good.  It  has  lead  our  theologians  and 
ministers  to  examine  Lutheran  doctrine  and  practice 
more  thoroughly,  and  thus  make  sure  that  they  stood  for 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  173 

the  pure  truth  as  our  Church  holds  it.  However,  our 
critics  have  usually  forgotten  the  peculiar  make-up  of  the 
General  Synod.  Ours  is  the  oldest  General  body  of 
Lutherans  in  this  country,  unless  the  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio  should  hold  that  place  of  honor.  The  General 
Synod  was  organized  in  1820.  From  the  start  it  used 
the  English  language  almost  exclusively.  From  the  start 
it  was  necessarily  thrown  into  contact  with  the  numerous 
Reformed  Churches  around  it.  The  General  Synod 
therefore,  has  not  been  able  to  build  up  her  constituency 
as  most  of  the  other  branches  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America  have  done — very  largely  out  of  immigrants 
from  Lutheran  countries  beyond  the  sea  and  from  the 
children  of  the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have 
largely  gone  to  the  unconverted  people  of  all  classes 
around  us,  and  have  tried  to  win  them  from  the  power 
of  Satan  unto  God,  just  as  we  should  have  done  and  just 
as  all  branches  of  the  Lutheran  Church  should  do.  In 
this  way  we  have  gathered  much  spiritually  unformed 
material  into  our  churches ;  many  of  these  recruits  had 
no  religious  training  whatever ;  others  were  brought  up 
in  the  various  denominations  around  us,  but  had  lapsed 
into  sin.  Thus,  while  we  have  simply  done  our  duty  in 
bringing  sinners  from  the  world  to  Christ  and  into  the 
Church,  it  has  given  us  a  heterogeneous  constituency ; 
and  it  takes  time  and  unwearying  patience  to  mould  all 
this  material  into  a  homogeneous  Lutheran  unity.  This 
is  our  peculiar  situation  in  the  General  Synod,  and  has 
been  all  along.  It  will  readily  account  for  the  fact  that 
some  of  our  congregations  and  ministers  are  not  and  have 
not  been  quite  as  perpendicular  in  their  Lutheranism  as 
they  should  have  been.     If  the  other  Lutheran  bodies 


174  Election  and  Conversion 

had  been  started  in  the  same  way,  and  had  set  for 
themselves  the  same  spiritual  task,  they  would  have  had 
precisely  the  same  problems  to  wrestle  with,  and  would 
have  suffered  from  the  same  embarassment.  While  the 
General  Synod  has  been  struggling  with  her  problems, 
and  doing  so  in  all  sincerity  and  devotion,  some  of  the 
other  bodies,  not  troubled  with  the  same  questions,  have 
looked  on  and  have  criticized  us.  For  this  we  do  not 
blame  them,  for  members  of  the  General  Synod  often 
did  some  fault-finding  with  others,  too.  But  now  that  wc 
are  coming  to  know  one  another  better,  and  to  understand 
better  the  peculiar  situation  in  each  Lutheran  body,  wc 
believe  that  the  time  has  come  for  charitable  judgment 
and  sympathetic  treatment. 

The  time  has  come  when  the  whole  Lutheran 
Church  must  do  more  home  missionary  work;  when  she 
must  not  be  satisfied  only  with  "gathering  Lutherans'' 
and  nurturing  the  children  of  the  Church  (noble  and 
paramount  a  work  as  this  is)  ;  but  when  she  must  go  out 
into  "the  highways  and  hedges,  the  lanes  and  the  alleys," 
and  bring  in  the  unsaved  of  all  classes  and  conditions. 
These  people  before  conversion  will  not  be  Lutherans, 
and  many  of  them  will  not  have  Lutheran  antecedents ; 
but  they  need  Christ  and  the  Church ;  and  after  they 
have  been  converted,  they  must  be  indoctrinated  and 
moulded  into  good  and  true  Lutherans.  When  some 
of  our  sister  Lutheran  bodies  do  this  kind  of  work  on 
a  large  scale,  as  the  General  Synod  has  done  all  along, 
they  will  have  some  of  the  difficult  problems  to  deal 
with  that  have  tested  the  General  Synod's  skill,  patience 
and  strength. 


The  Question  of  Lutheran  Unity  175 

Let  it  be  understood  that  the  mission  work  which  we 
urge  must  not  be  done  by  the  so-called  ''revival"  method. 
God  forbid !  It  must  be  done  according  to  our  sober 
and  solid  Lutheran  methods — quiet  personal  work  on  the 
part  of  pastors  and  people,  careful  catechization  after 
conversion,  and  the  true  preaching  of  the  law  and  the 
gospel.  When  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  of  America 
enters  this  work  with  sacred  earnestness  and  prayer, 
much  of  our  controversy  will  be  laid  aside. 

The  General  Synod  has  learned  some  valuable 
lessons  through  her  long  years  of  mission  work  among 
the  unsaved  and  unchurched.  She  has  learned,  and 
that  by  not  a  little  bitter  experience,  that  the  so-called 
"revival"  system  is  not  the  best  way  to  make  good  and 
substantial  Christians  and  church  members.  She  has 
also  learned  that  the  only  proper  way  to  bring  up  the 
children  of  the  church,  and  as  many  other  children  as 
possible,  is  by  careful  instruction  in  the  home,  the  Sun- 
day-school and  the  catechetical  class.  Of  course,  many 
of  our  pastors  were  sound  in  their  practices  along  this 
line  from  the  beginning,  but  a  good  many  others  had 
to  learn  by  experience  and  observation.  The  General 
Synod  has  learned,  in  addition  to  the  foregoing,  that  even 
adults  should  not  be  received  into  the  church  in  a  pro- 
miscuous way,  after  they  have  confessed  Christ  in  con- 
version, but  that  they,  as  well  as  children,  should  first 
pursue  a  course  of  careful  indoctrination  in  the  cate- 
chism under  the  pastor,  before  they  are  admitted  into 
full  membership.  It  has  not  been  our  fault  that  we 
did  not  know  these  things  by  mere  intuition,  nor  has  it 
been  to  their  credit  that  some  other  branches  of  the 
Lutheran   Church  have  not  had  to  wrestle  with  these 


176  Election  and  Conversion 

problems ;  the  whole  matter  has  been  due  to  the  peculiar 
conditions  and  environments  here  in  this  new  land  of 
America,  where  work  along  so  many  lines  had  to  be 
experimental  and  tentative  for  a  time. 

Our  task  is  done.  No  other  feeling  than  that  of 
love  and  admiration  for  our  Concordia  brethren  has 
actuated  us  in  this  undertaking.  We  have  been  frank, 
perhaps  a  little  polemical  at  times,  but  always  friendly. 
Our  hope  and  prayer  have  been  that  this  presentation 
might  accomplish  this  one  object,  if  nothing  more:  to 
make  it  clear  to  all  parties  that  no  one  should  be  too 
dogmatic  regarding  the  doctrines  in  dispute,  and 
especially  should  not  make  them  the  cause  of  separa- 
tion and  exclusion.  May  even  this  humble  effort  help 
to  make  for  Lutheran  unity  and  good-will !  And  may 
Christ  reign  in  all  our  hearts  and  His  Holy  Spirit  guide 
our  Lutheran  Zion  into  the  ways  of  truth  and  peace! 


FINIS 


INDEX 


Abraham's  election,  118,  119. 
Acts  preparatory,  51,  52,  78,  86-110. 
Allwardt,  Rev  H.  A.,  20,  51,  144. 
Analogy  of  faith,  55,  58. 
Apology  of  A.  C,  35,  70. 
Assurance  of  salvation,  108-110. 
Augustine,  126. 

Author,  why  he  wrote  this  book,  16-21,  158,  159;  no  separatist, 
169. 

Baptism,  63,  83,  84,  85,  170. 

Book  of  Concord,  15,  135,  161,  166,  167,  168. 

Brenz,  161. 

Call,  the   divine,  21,   47-55,   66,   71,  82,  87,   88,  92,   95,   98,  99, 

101,  114. 
Calvinism,   7,  8,  9,   10,   15,   19,  20,  23,  42,   54,   57,  67,   106.   115, 

126,  129. 
Catechism,  Luther's,  150,  166.  167.  169. 
Chemnitz,  88.  89. 
Civil  righteousness,  70. 
"Come-outers,"  147. 
Communicatio  idiomatum,  60,   170. 

Concordia  dogmaticians.  5,  24,  53,  56,  84,  92,  108,  166,  176. 
Conduct  and  good  conduct,  9,  25,  41,  89,  116,  118,  138,  164,  165. 
Confessions,  Lutheran,  7,  9,  135,  159. 
Consubstantiation,  8. 
Conversion    (chief   references),   5,    18,  50,   52,  60;    in  the  strict 

sense,  61-73 ;  78,  80,  85,  92,  97,  98,  100;  in  the  wider  sense,  lOL 


180  INDEX 

Death,  spiritual,   defined,  68-71. 

Decrees,  divine.  7,  9,  10,  22,  23,  31,  35,  36,  75,  85,  114,  133,  136, 

139. 
Disciples,  proposals  for  union,  14. 
Discretio  personarum,  164. 

Discussion  necessary,  18,  21,  158,  159,  164,  166. 
Doctrinal  agreement  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  15,  160,  161,  168, 

169. 

Election  (chief  references),  5,  8-10,  18,  30,  38,  46,  60,  85,  114, 
115,  117-136,  138;  to  be  sought  in  revealed  Word,  139,  140, 
160;  comfort  of,  109,  110,  123,  132,  133,  134. 

Episcopalians,  proposals  for  union,  14. 

Ernst,  Prof.  H.,  20,  51,  114. 

"Error  of  Missouri,"  20,  51. 

Exclusiveness,  142-157. 

Fairbairn,  a.   M.,    (reference  to  consubstantiation),   8. 

Faith,  justifying,  the  regulative  principle  in  theology,  20-30,  115; 

no   merit,   25-30,    137,    138,    165;    determines   destiny,   32-40; 

wrought  in  regeneration,  61-72;  not  mechanical,  78,  79;  "in 

view  of  faith"  sharply  defined,  113,  114;  a  condition,  not  a 

cause  of  election,  138;  most  pleasing  to  God,  141. 
Foreknowledge  and  foresight,  36,  2,7,  113,  118,  122,  128,  129,  136, 

140. 
Foreordination,  30,  Z2>,  34,  100,  112,  127,  128,  129,  130,  140. 
Formula  of  Concord,  8,  15,  22,  35,  60,  71,  87,  135,  139,  150,  162. 
Free    conferences    (Missouri,    Ohio    and    Iowa),   58,    141,   148, 

149,  161. 
Freedom  and  free  will,  Z7,  38,  50,  52,  55,  63,  64,  67,  71,  74-79, 

90,  91,  99,  100,  101,  102,  107,  114,  121,  141. 

General  Council,  159. 

General  Synod,  6,  14,  135,  165,  166,  167,  172,  173,  174. 

Gentiles,  election  of,  116-126. 

Graebner,  Dr.  A.  L.,  29,  52,  54. 

Gratia  sufficiens,  40,  98,  114. 

"Holiness"  sect,  their  separatism,  146,  147. 


/  N  D  E  X  181 

Illumination,  21,  49-55,  61,  66,  67,  71,  76,  82,  88,  92,  95,   101. 
Intuitu  fidei,  9,  16,  21,  23,  24,  25,  26,  28,  29-51,  109;  term  sharply 

defined,   113,   114,   165. 
Iowa  Synod,  5,  58,  142,  159. 
Irresistible  grace,  37,  67. 
Isaac  and  Ishmael,  119. 
Israel's  election,  116-126. 

Jacob  and  Esau,  119-121. 

Jacobs,  Dr.  Henry  E.,  15,  16,  20,  24,  27,  35,  50,  52,  55,  71,  98, 
113,  114.  115,  120,  135,  139,  162. 

Jews,  election  of,  116-126. 

Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  5,  21,  58,  142,  144,  159,  173. 

Justification  by  faith,  all  Lutherans  accept,  15,  169;  Lutheran 
regulative  principle,  22-30,  50,  6i,  113,  115;  central  with  Paul, 
24,  25,  112-126;  also  with  Luther,  22-24;  as  a  basis,  165,  167. 

Latitudinarianism,  171. 

Lenski,  Professor  R.  C.  H.,  41. 

Lord's  Supper,  8,  150,  170. 

Luther,  22,  23,  24,  30,  39,  41,  85,  88,  115,  118,  138,  139,  161. 

Lutheran  Church,  5,  16,  ?>7,  46,  67,  84,  87,  97,  104,  157,  158,  159. 

163-165.  170-176. 
Lutheran  comity  and  co-operation,  basis  nf,  166. 
Lutheran  Liberty.  16,  159,  164,  165. 
Lutheran  unity  and  union,  5,  6,  14-21,  87,  104,  151-157,  1S&-176; 

proposed  basis,  167. 

Madison  Agreement,  6,  7,  102,  103. 

Melanchthon,  98. 

Missouri  Synod,  her  precise  position,  5-13;  concise  statement, 
8-10;  Dr.  Pieper's  statement,  10-13;  sincerity,  8;  her  rigid 
position,  19;  election  central,  20-25,  30;  her  view  of  faith 
22-30,  79,  137;  of  divine  sovereignty,  23;  of  mystery,  31-40 
55,  139;  her  creed,  35,  139;  contradictory  position,  53-55 
disconnected  use  of  Scripture,  55-60,  128,  130-134,  143,  145 
148;  misapplied  Scripture,  142-151;  omits  baptism,  84,  85 
her   view   of   the  will,   9d,   91,    141 ;    figures   of   speech,   98 


182  INDEX 

favorite   passages,    111-135;    emphasizes   God's   power,    115; 

confuses    God's    general    and    special    decrees,    136 ;    public 

prayer,  142;  separatism,  142-157. 
Motus  inevitabiles,  99. 
Mystery,    Missouri's,    7,    9,    11,    13;    locating    it,    31-40;    other 

references,  45,  50,  53,  60,  72,  106,  107,  139,  141. 

Natural  powers,  65,  66,  70-72,  86,  87,  98. 

Negative  criticism,  131,  161,  168,  171. 

Neve,  Dr.  J.  L.,  58,  142. 

Nicene  Council,   163. 

Norwegian  Lutherans,  5,  6,  7,  102,  105. 

Norwegian  Lutheran  Synod,  6,  159. 

Nuggets  of  thought,  136-141. 

Order  of  salvation,  21,  49,  61,  65,  85,  114,  116. 
Osiander,  97. 

Pelagianism,  8,   19,  42,  43,  46,  50,   161. 

Pharaoh,  121-128,  134,  138. 

Pieper,  Dr.  F.  (chief  references),  his  book,  5,  8;  repudiates 
Calvinism,  7,  8,  10,  12,  23 ;  doctrinal  statement,  10-13 ;  Pieper 
and  Jacobs,  15,  16,  50;  wrong  allegations,  19,  20,  50,  51; 
his  central  doctrine,  20-25,  30;  makes  faith  a  merit,  25,  26, 
30,  137;  his  gracious  concession,  39;  mechanical  treatment 
of  preparatory  acts,  51,  S6-110;  omits  prayer,  62;  conception 
of  faith  and  freedom,  79,  80,  141;  omits  baptism,  84,  85; 
view  of  responsibility  in  the  unconverted,  103,  106;  his  view 
fails  to  give  assurance,  108-110;  treatment  of  Rom.  8:28-30, 
112;  his  apparent  ultimauim,  165. 

Potter  and  clay,  118,  123. 

Prayer,  place  of  in  conversion,  61-63. 

Predestination,  6,  7,  15,  Z7,  112-115,  144. 

Predetermination,  divine.  36,  113,  116,  125,  126.  136.  139. 

Preparatory  Acts,  86-110. 

Presbyterians,   104,   107. 

Prevenient  grace,  47-55,  61.  o3,  65,  71,  78,  82,  83,  92,  114. 

Proselyting  sects,  when  they  flourish,  164. 


I  N  D  E  X  183 

Rabies  theologicorum,  163. 
Rationalism.   131.   161.   171. 
Regeneration,  52,  61-72,  76,   101. 
Replies  to  Missouri,  5,  20,  21,  37,  41,  51. 
Responsibility  of  sinners,  50.  59,  103-107,  114,  141. 
Revivalism,  175. 

Salvation  and  conversion  ethical,  21,  52,  71,  75,  76,  90,  94. 

Scandinavians  bodies,   166. 

Schmidt,  Dr.  F.  A.,  20,  51. 

Schodde,  Dr.  G.  H.,  20. 

Schuette,  Dr.  C.  H.  L.,  21. 

Sedes  doctrinae,  33,  147. 

Seminaries,  teaching  in  General  Synod,  167. 

Separatism,  142-157. 

Sheldon,  Henry  C.,  125,  126. 

Sola  gratia,  9,   12,   15,  26,  .?8,  36,  49,   51,  65,   76,  94,   102,   115, 

160,  165. 
Sola  vis,  115. 

Sovereignty,  divine,  22,  23,  116-126. 
Spaeth,  Dr.  A.,  73,  74. 
Staupitz,   24. 

Stellhorn,  Dr.  F.  W.,  20,  51,  135,  161. 
Strassburg  faculty,  89,  100. 
Synergism,  rejected  by  all  Lutherans,  8,  9,  15,  19,  20,  25.  46.  49. 

50,  65,  81,  89,  98.   103,  111,  161. 
Synodical  Conference,  7,  13,  45,  142,  159.  160. 

Tbessel,  Rev.  E.  L.  S..  20,  37,  38,  42,  51. 

Ubiquity  of  Christ,  170. 

Unio  Mystica,  63. 

Union,  Lutheran  (see  "Lutheran  Union"). 

United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church,  6. 

United  Synod  of  the  South,  160. 

Universalis  gratia,  10,  12,  IS,  160. 

Vocation,  47-55,  61,  65,  67,  71.  76. 


184  INDEX 

Walther,  D.  C.  F.  W.   (spelled  Walter  in  text),  38,  92-96,  99. 

144. 
Will,  God's  a  distinction,  137. 
Will,  man's,  (see  "freedom  and  free  will"). 
Wittenberg  seminary,  167. 

Word  of  God  accepted  by  all   Lutherans,  7,   161,   168,    169;   its 
teaching  decisive.  111. 


Date  Due 

'^f^^^ 

'     ..a^^^^ 

1^ 

"^               'iV 

jfliiHp 

^ 

^s:-; 


1012  01032  1745 


